April 19, 2024 • 32 mins
Roger Severino, VP of Domestic Policy at Heritage and Trump's former Director of the Office of Civil Rights (HHS), has expertise as a trial attorney and in jury selection, and tried cases for over 7 years with the Department of Justice. What we are seeing here is a complete and utter miscarriage of justice.
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):
But we'll come in your city one of day I get.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Seen your comfort zone will be desire, holl a tale.
Speaker 1 (00:14):
And if you want a little bang in a union.
Speaker 3 (00:16):
And come along.
Speaker 4 (00:20):
In this moment, don't mister president, don't stop it.
Speaker 1 (00:26):
Support Israel with respect.
Speaker 5 (00:29):
Go to Amazon and buy a spine online.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
Overturning rope was just the opening act, just the opening act.
Speaker 1 (00:39):
Of a larger strategy.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
To take women's rights and freedoms.
Speaker 1 (00:49):
Believe it or not.
Speaker 6 (00:50):
Only two hundred days left till you get to vote.
Speaker 1 (00:56):
But we'll come in to your city against and saying
you a conco song.
Speaker 6 (01:05):
From coast to coast, from border to border, from c
to Shining Sea. Sean Kennedy is on.
Speaker 4 (01:19):
All right, thanks Scott Shannon and our two Sean Hannity's
show Toll Free. It's eight hundred and ninety four one, Shawn,
if you want to be a part of the program.
I got a note earlier today. Uh, and I've been
saying this of a person that was in the courtroom
at the Trump trial in New York City today. You
can't imagine the panel, not one person. And this was
(01:41):
sent to a friend who then forwarded it to me.
Reads the post. Meaning the New York Post, or watch Fox,
watches Fox, or listens to talk radio. Quote, he is
screwed and literally, you know it's kind of liberal. You
just see liberal new Yorker after liberal new Yorker that
get their news from Google, MPR, CNN, and the New
(02:03):
York Times. I have yet to see one working class person. Now,
the judge in this case was scolding the press for
reporting too much information.
Speaker 1 (02:13):
He said, use common sense.
Speaker 4 (02:15):
What was a little ambiguous in his remarks, And he
addressed the press directly and telling them that reporting on
too much background information about the jurors defeats the purpose
of anonymity. And he said, but I'm directing the press,
and this is weird. He said, the press is certainly
able and permitted to write about anything that's on the record,
(02:36):
because it's on the record. But I'm directing that the
press simply applies common sense.
Speaker 1 (02:40):
Well, what does that even mean? How do you interpret that?
Speaker 4 (02:43):
I mean, if you say so and so is from
this place, in this profession, of this age, race, whatever
whatever demographic information you want to give out, I mean,
you got to explain that. Of course, prosecutors are furious
Trump violated the gag order, you know, seven times. But
all the other people in the trial are free to
say anything that they want. We talked about that yesterday.
(03:05):
I've said from the beginning, I don't think this is
a fair venue. I don't believe that Donald Trump can
get an unbiased jury in this case. We did have
one juror that was dismissed and immediately races out to
the cameras of MSDNC and talks about her time being
going through this jury process.
Speaker 1 (03:26):
Let's listen, I do. This is Cat.
Speaker 2 (03:30):
She runs a VC fundier in Manhattan for folks that
are over sixty years of age. She was just dismissed
as a potential juror.
Speaker 1 (03:39):
What happened?
Speaker 2 (03:39):
Why were you dismissed?
Speaker 7 (03:41):
Because I couldn't be impartial.
Speaker 2 (03:43):
You couldn't be impartial. So when judge asked that hand,
can you be impartial? You raised your hand and you
said you cannot exactly. Wow, when did you first come
on Tuesday? On Tuesday, and at that point, when did
you realize that this was a trial involving the ex
president of the United States, Donald tru.
Speaker 7 (04:00):
Were here on Tuesday from nine am. But we realized
that it's about this case. On four pm. We went
into the courtroom and we showed Donald Trump. You went
into the court four pm.
Speaker 2 (04:14):
On Tuesday, see Donald Trump.
Speaker 8 (04:16):
Yeah, we didn't know before that.
Speaker 1 (04:17):
What was your first thought.
Speaker 6 (04:19):
I was shocked.
Speaker 7 (04:21):
I was sitting on the second row, like six feet away,
and when I realized that Trump is there, I was like,
oh wow, I couldn't believe it.
Speaker 2 (04:33):
What about the people around you?
Speaker 7 (04:34):
Everybody was shocked. Everybody was frozen, like frozen, no expressions, nothing,
We were all you know, did he did that was
the case?
Speaker 8 (04:44):
Did he look back at you?
Speaker 2 (04:45):
Did that the attorneys look back at you at that time?
Speaker 7 (04:48):
Sometimes Trump would turn his head. Yeah, but that was it. Yeah,
he didn't stand up or anything.
Speaker 2 (04:56):
Were you following the case before this? I didn't really
until you're too busy, but you knew he was on trial,
or you knew he was I.
Speaker 7 (05:03):
Knew, Yeah, it's just the headlines. But yeah, too busy
to read the debates. Have you ever served as a
jur before? No, that's my first time because I just
became a citizen in August. Yeah, that was my first call.
Speaker 2 (05:17):
And so you just became a citizen of the United States.
Does that mean you've never voted in the presidential exactly
called to be a juror, and this is the jury
that you are called to. Yes, what was unbelievable. That
is unbelievable. I know, what was your impression of Donald
Trump when you saw him?
Speaker 7 (05:37):
You know he looked less orange, definitely, like more yellowish yellow.
Speaker 1 (05:45):
No thing ex than that.
Speaker 7 (05:46):
He looks He doesn't look angry or I think he
looks bored, like he wants this to finish and go
do his stuff.
Speaker 4 (05:56):
That's how Yeah, he looks bored, but it looks less orange.
And now the fundamental question here is whether that whether
Donald Trump in a city that had what twelve percent
or less than twelve percent of the electorate vote for him,
can get an impartial jury here to weigh in on this,
as Roger Severino, vice president of Domestic Policy at Heritage
(06:19):
and Trump's former director of the Office of Civil Rights
at the Health and Human Services and anyway has a
lot of experience as a trial attorney in jury selection. First,
the ambiguity of the judge's comments, Oh, you have every
right to report on what goes on in the courtroom,
but use common sense about what you say about jurors.
Speaker 1 (06:41):
I mean, what does that mean? How does anyone determine that.
Speaker 4 (06:45):
All we have ever talked about is where in New
York they're from and where they get the news from
for the most part, you know, or whether they're a
male or female, or what demographics they may fit.
Speaker 1 (06:56):
But that's about it.
Speaker 3 (06:57):
Yeah, it's very unusual. Trials are supposed to be public
to ensure there's transparency because a person's life and freedom
are on the line in criminal trials, so you want
to have the public be able to see what goes on.
In a free society, you don't do trials behind closed doors.
That's what you do in communist countries where people get disappeared.
So there has to be a role for the media
(07:18):
to be there, and it's very important to get insights
into what this jury pool is going to be that
gets selected. So the media is important to be reporting on. Okay,
this is a type of questions they are being asked.
It's a judge asking the right questions. Are the lawyers
acting within bounds? And what about the jurors? Are the
missing key aspects of potential bias because again we have
(07:39):
the former president's freedom on the line and a lot
of the benefit of doubt in our constitutional system protects
the innocent and rightly so there's a real question. So
whether President Trump can get an impartial jury in Manhattan,
that's a real question, and we're seeing a lot of
that playout given the overwhelming number of jurors that have
already been dismissed because they admitted, to their credit, they
couldn't be fair with President.
Speaker 1 (07:59):
Trump, you know, to their credit. I will share that view.
Speaker 4 (08:02):
By the way, the Associated Press two thirds of Americans
are not convinced that Alvin Bragg's case is even legitimate.
One thing, there are a number of things that I
doubt this story is ever going to learn, at least
in that court room. One is that the judge himself
voted I'm sorry, donated to Joe Biden in twenty twenty
(08:23):
to the issue of his daughter in political connections, and
that brings up the issue of recusals. I don't think
they're going to learn about the gag order preventing Donald
Trump from going out and speaking about the case, which
I think is a violation of his First Amendment rights.
You know, I thought what former ag Barr said, this
is a real threat to democracy than not being the
(08:46):
progressive left, and how this case is an abomination, and
I think he's exactly right here.
Speaker 1 (08:52):
I think Stephen A.
Speaker 4 (08:53):
Smith is right when he said he believes Democrats won
Trump convicted to avoid facing him an election now two
hundred days outside of the I think tipping point election
for this country. I have a greater sense of urgency
that I've ever had. And there's a lot that I
think that this jury's never going to know about this case.
(09:14):
They're not going to know that the statute limitations have
brought out. They're not going to know that that Alvin
Bragg is now reaching into federal law as a means
of sort of justifying this case a guy that had
reduced felony charges to misdemeanor sixty percent of the time.
Except of your last name's Trump, it goes in the
other direction. I don't think they're going to hear any
(09:36):
of that.
Speaker 3 (09:36):
And President Trump will have a lot of arguments on
appeal if he were to be convicted.
Speaker 1 (09:42):
Okay, on appeal after conviction.
Speaker 4 (09:45):
What are the odds that that is taking care of
and handled before the election.
Speaker 3 (09:49):
Yeah, that the difficulty. We know what the plan was.
These claims could have been brought years ago, literally years ago,
but they waited conveniently at a time they put President
trumpet maximum political parle. Now by and large, it has
blown up in their faces. The more the radical left
goes attacking President Trump with lawfare, the more popular he
has become, the more support he's gotten because people know
(10:11):
this is abuse of the justice system. It is so ridiculous.
At this point, American see right through it. The question
is does this Manhattan jury see right through it? And
the points you raised earlier, there's so many things in
the background that the jurors are probably not going to
be aware of why this case was brought at all. Now,
it is interesting that two jurors that got through so far,
and there's so a few to go, are lawyers. And
(10:34):
that's very interesting to me because I served on a jury.
I was a jury form in years ago, and it
tends to happen that one or two people start to
dominate the conversations. And I had a personality where I'd
started to dominate the conversation, and that makes a tremendous difference.
And lawyers might have an advantage here. And if we
get a lawyer that says, you know what, this case
(10:55):
doesn't make any sense. That just looks at the law dispassionately.
What does this have to do with campaign finance when
we're talking about business records under state law? Does this
make any sense to anybody? It's such a weak case
that you might have an impartial lawyer that says, to
the other jurors, you know what, this doesn't make any sense,
and according to law, he's going to be not guilty. Alternatively,
you might get a liberal Manhattan lawyer that doesn't like Trump.
(11:17):
So it could cut both ways.
Speaker 1 (11:19):
Oh, I agree with all of that.
Speaker 4 (11:21):
I mean, so you think actually that might be favorable
to Donald Trump.
Speaker 1 (11:24):
The two attorneys are on.
Speaker 3 (11:25):
This case, it's very possible. I mean they got through,
which means Trump's attorneys didn't find enough reason to strike them.
And they still have a couple what they're called peremptory
challenges where they don't have to explain why they're striking
a juror, right if they find cause in indications of bias.
There's unlimited people that could pull out if there's evidence
of bias.
Speaker 9 (11:46):
But they also, let's get you a.
Speaker 3 (11:48):
Limited number is parameter, right, they could just say, you
know what, we just have a bad hunch about this person.
They're off the jury. There's a few more peremptory strikes left,
and they're saving it all.
Speaker 4 (11:56):
Right, quick break, more on the latest in this ridiculous
Trump trial in New York. More with Roger Severino. Right,
we continue now with analysis of jury selection in the
Trump trial with Roger Severino, Vice President Domestic Policy at Heritage.
Let's get to the issue of the gag order and
(12:16):
the recusal issue of the judge in the case. Do
you think the gag order itself is constitutional? Do you
believe that in this case, knowing what we know about
the judge, just the fact that he donated to Biden
in twenty twenty, I think would be caused for recusal.
The issue that has been brought up by at least
to phonic at others about the daughter and political activities
(12:40):
that she's been involved in that even are affected by
this case, would that be grounds for recusal? Based on
the law of New York, which I've laid out many times.
I won't read here again, but do you think this
is grounds for recusal?
Speaker 3 (12:56):
Recusal's always tossed because the burden of proof is really high,
because it's so politicized, These questions need to be asked
about this judge. The problem is the judge has already
issued a gag order on President Trump, and again, the
timing of this trial was trying to inflict the maximum
political harm to President Trump's being president, to deprive the
American people of getting their say through the ballot box
(13:19):
instead of putting it in the hands of twelve jurors
from Manhattan. That's been their plan. Now, what Trump can
do about it is make the case that this is
further evidence of a weaponized justice system, but not a
republic level. And he has a constitutional right to be
able to say that, to petition the government for redresses
to protest it. He is running for president of the
(13:39):
United States, and he's been deprived of the ability to
talk about one of the main issues, and the main
issue is he needs to He wants to fix the
broken justice system that has been weaponized against political enemies.
Speaker 8 (13:52):
Right.
Speaker 3 (13:52):
That is a distortion of the constitutional structure. That is
a key campaign event, and he's living that nightmare right now.
And the judges on precurious grounds to try to limit
a former president from being able to campaign effectively on
an issue of public public concern.
Speaker 4 (14:07):
Well, the judge has been very clear that Donald Trump
must be in court every single day or he will
send him to jail for however long this trial lasts.
Speaker 1 (14:17):
Estimates are a month or longer.
Speaker 4 (14:20):
That in fact, Donald Trump will be literally seating the
entire playing field that is swinging states in this election.
To his opponent Joe Biden, who's been in Pennsylvania for
the last couple of days. Does that, And I would
argue too that if Democrats had their way, Donald Trump
would be in a court room from now until November
(14:40):
fifth and not have any opportunity to run a real campaign.
At at some point does the Justice Department step in
and follow what quote is not unwritten policy that you
don't you don't do this, but just prior to an election.
Speaker 3 (14:58):
Yeah, there is long standing policy if we don't bring
political prosecutions right before an election, and that norm has
been shattered. But the DOJ it has all the hallmarks
of the deep state, and they went after Trump with
the Russia hoax. They now have been further weaponized under Biden,
given a complete free reign to go after him. So
all those norms of non political interference have been thrown
(15:19):
off the window when it comes to Trump, and we've
seen it in the kid gloves treatment they've done with
President Biden, not going after him or his son for
tax evation, for gun charges, for the documents of the
secret documents and confidential information that President Biden should not
have had in his garage next to his corvette and
in the open garage, all these things where you get
(15:41):
this differential treatment, a two tier system of justice. And
that's why President Trump has promised to clean house if
he gets back into office. That is a popular message.
But there are all these forces from judge gag orders
to the cases brought against them themselves to try to
put them in jail and to try to bankrupt him
that want to preserve the status quo. The WEAPONI doj
to go after proloconomies that that has to change. This
(16:03):
cannot go on.
Speaker 1 (16:04):
It really is unbelievable.
Speaker 4 (16:05):
Anyway, we appreciate your time, Roger Sebarino, thank you so
much for your insight. It's going to get more interesting
by the day, that's for sure. Eight hundred ninety four
one Shawn us On number. If you want to be
a part of the program, Hi twenty five to the
top of the hour are toll free telephone numbers. Eight
hundred nine to four one Sean, if you want to
be a part of the program, want to remind you
about our friends of Preborn and Hannity Baby Shower. We've
(16:28):
been talking about Linda Yes.
Speaker 5 (16:31):
So we have all of these amazing moms out there
and we want to bring more moms into the fold.
And the only way we can do that is by
showing these young moms that are pregnant, even if it's unplanned,
what that beauty is inside of them. It is a
real life and ultrasound are twenty eight bucks. If we
can get one thousand people to donate five hundred bucks,
and please know we get it. It's a lot of money.
(16:51):
Biden is crushing us, but it's up to us to
look beyond it and help save a life. So please
donate some money. Go to preborn dot com for slash Seawn.
That's sea n where you can dial the number two
fifty on your cell phone you say the keyword baby.
Speaker 10 (17:05):
Please.
Speaker 5 (17:06):
Guys, Mother's Day is around the corner. We're really trying
to give whatever you can. It's going towards saving a life.
Plan parent put is taking your money and they're killing
babies left and right. We're trying to do the exact
opposite here. Please help us do this for Mother's Day?
Speaker 4 (17:19):
All right, preborn dot com, slash sean or pound two
fifty on your cell keyword baby anyway eight hundred and
nine four one sean if you want to be a
part of the program.
Speaker 1 (17:30):
We have so much to talk about today.
Speaker 4 (17:32):
Well it's I know it's a little off the beaten track,
but when I saw this, I said, there's no way
this could be true.
Speaker 1 (17:39):
But here's the headline. It is.
Speaker 4 (17:42):
California lawmakers say buying sixteen seventeen year olds for sex
is not a felony.
Speaker 1 (17:49):
California Democrats.
Speaker 4 (17:51):
They decided this past Tuesday that purchasing a sixteen or
seventeen year old for sex is not a felony. Democrats
in the Senate Public's Safety Committee forced amendments on the
bill of the author that the author, Shannon Grove of Bakersfield,
objected to. Those amendments denied her efforts to protect sixteen
and seventeen year old children from being purchased as part
(18:13):
of a commercial sex trafficking ring.
Speaker 1 (18:16):
Backstory.
Speaker 4 (18:17):
Current California law makes it a misdemeanor for anyone who
purchases or solicits a miner for sex. It only carries
a jail sentence of two days to one year in
a maximum of ten thousand dollars in terms of a fine.
And last year, Grove pushed through the Senate Bill fourteen,
which we classified human traffickers of miners for the purpose
(18:40):
of sex as a serious felony under the law. Now,
while SB fourteen went after human traffickers who are selling
children for sex, her new proposal goes after the buyers anyway.
Her proposal would make it a felony to purchase or
solicit any minor for sex, whether or not the person
knew that minor was under the age of eighteen. I mean,
(19:03):
what's going on with our society? This is what we're
talking about. The big piece in the New York Post
today psychiatrists warned youth gender change must never be questioned.
You can't question it, and then you get into this
gender affirming psychiatric care. Gerald Posner writes the article as
the first textbook dedicated to providing affirming, intersectional and evidence
(19:29):
in forms psychiatric care for transgender, non binary, and or
gender expansive people. Close examination reveals it's an extremist handbook
that could put kids on a fast track from the
therapist chair the life changing hormones, treatments and surgery in
(19:49):
the textbook, he points out, he believes is more than
just a curiosity with the American Psychiatric Association's reference in
this book that is widely used in medical sk by specialists, etc.
As a practicing psychiatrist and mother of three in Oklahoma
City based psychiatrist told me, I've lost sleep knowing this
(20:10):
textbook is being taught in medical schools and reticidencies sold
as peer reviewed, necessary, life saving and evidence based and
it is simply not. I mean, that's a pretty big
shockwave that Secret Files revealed last month that members of
the leading transgender healthcare organization privately admitting that children in
(20:31):
adolescents are incapable of giving informed consent and what is
irreversible in terms of, you know, the medical procedures to
which they would be subjected for such care. A three
hundred and eighty eight page report from the UK, named
after the chief author, a pediatrician, Hillary Cass, excoriated the
(20:51):
lack of scientific evidence for the use of hormones and
surgery for gender questioning minors. One result is Britain's banning
of puberty blocks for those under eighteen. But this is
what this is where these are the issues I never
thought we'd discuss, like squatting, stealing somebody else's home. Unreal.
(21:12):
A lot of people lost their ability to dial nine
to one one yesterday in three states, according to officials.
Is a lot of these instances happening seemingly not related.
Speaker 1 (21:23):
But you know, you begin a question what's going on here?
In the UK?
Speaker 4 (21:26):
By the way, lawmakers are voting decisively in favor of
legislation to ban smoking in Britain completely. The Tobacco and
Vapespill now one step closer to becoming law after clearing
the first turtle in Parliament. The bill would make it
illegal to sell tobacco to anyone born after January first,
two thousand and nine, with the legal age for the
(21:47):
purchase of tobacco products increasing by one year every year
until it eventually covers the entire population.
Speaker 1 (21:54):
How about freedom?
Speaker 4 (21:54):
But if you decide to make the decision to smoke,
then you can't expect the rest of society to pay
for the whole care costs. All right, let's get to
our phones. A lot of you standing by patiently. Let's
say hi to Athena. She's in South Carolina. How are you, Athena.
It was an article today that there are many conservatives
that they are racing over to South Carolina, and South
(22:17):
Carolina's growing by leaps and bounds, and all the data
that we've seen on it confirms that.
Speaker 8 (22:24):
Yes, that's true. And good afternoon to you and Linda.
I love both of you.
Speaker 1 (22:28):
And who do you love more? Me or Linda?
Speaker 8 (22:30):
Oh, don't put me in that position.
Speaker 1 (22:32):
I'm putting in that position. I love good answer. That's
a good answer.
Speaker 5 (22:38):
You can tell him you love him more. Everyone loves
Sewan Moore and I am at piece of that.
Speaker 4 (22:44):
They're a piece of that because she thinks she's superior.
That's why. Anyway, what's on your mind?
Speaker 8 (22:51):
I'm'll be real quick and then then I will hang
up and let you give me your answer. But you know,
tell me what you think.
Speaker 10 (22:57):
But this is it.
Speaker 8 (22:58):
I hear you all the time and you say, you know,
you know, you've got to get people to register blah
blah blah blah. And we did that and we had
millions more votes last time, but it didn't it didn't work.
I think this is a good idea because you do
it and you have the connection. But every conservative and
now that Laura Trump is an associate associate director or
whatever of the GOP, you know that they should, you know,
(23:22):
just like they pay for ads, well, they should pay
all the conservatives to go to town halls. To have
town halls and have the local people, the local representatives
and council and senatives that are running for office there
and also talk about Trump's successes when he.
Speaker 9 (23:38):
Was in office.
Speaker 8 (23:39):
But get these people in town halls so the other
people that don't because like yesterday, I was talking to
somebody online and he said that President Trump had ninety
one sexual assaults and nobody like that should be president.
They believe the craft that they hear on regular TV.
So we need town halls and to pay all of
(23:59):
y'all because there's there's hundreds of you, Stacy on the right,
you know, Terence, everybody, the whole townhouse. But they can't
afford to do that.
Speaker 10 (24:08):
But with the GEO, well for it.
Speaker 8 (24:12):
Go ahead.
Speaker 4 (24:12):
Let me let me give you. Let me give you
some good news. Is Laura Trump happened to be on
Hannity last night. I asked her for an update and
their efforts to get people to vote early, vote by mail,
and she says they're making a lot of progress. I
asked her about the progress about legal ballot harvesting. She
said they're making a lot of progress there, and then
(24:32):
she gave out a website. And on the website, you know,
they're they're letting people sign up to become trained poll watchers.
And that's I think every single voting precinct in the
country needs trained poll watchers that get to watch the
voting all day and the vote counting all night. Now,
(24:52):
one thing Democrats won't be able to do is what
they were able to pull off in twenty twenty, which
is many states have laws that say that partisan observers
get to watch the vote counting, and because of COVID,
there were no accommodations made and as a result, you know,
people that were partisan observers were one thousand and two
thousand feet away if they were even allowed in the room.
(25:15):
That's not going to happen this time. So I think
that that hopefully brings more integrity. I am just telling
all of you, and some of you have been angry
at me that I'm saying this. You're telling people, you're
giving them bad information. No I'm not giving them bad information.
You cannot start out election day down hundreds of thousands
(25:36):
of votes and hope that people show up that one
day in droves and are able to overcome what is
the banking of votes by Democrats. Republicans have got to
embrace early voting, voting by mail, and it's not the
system I want. I want election day to be a
(25:59):
national holiday. I want one day voting, not thirty days voting.
I want I want voter ID, I want signature verification.
I want chain of custody controls where we any any
ballots that are mailed in or under camera, underwatch the
whole time. I want updated voter rolls, and I want
partisan observers. But we can't change those laws unless we
(26:22):
win elections first. So the system we're stuck with we
better embrace and we better master, or we're not going
to maximize the potential vote of conservatives and Republicans.
Speaker 8 (26:37):
That's correct, I agree. I agree with all that, but
you know, he's got to be our president. I appreciate
you taking the time to talk to me, and you'll
have a blessed day too.
Speaker 4 (26:48):
You have a blessed day as well. Eight hundred and
nine to four one Sean, if you want to be
a part of the program, David in Alabama? Where in
Alabama are you?
Speaker 1 (26:55):
David? I'm doing our rat sir, And where are you?
And Alibaba?
Speaker 10 (27:00):
What do you say?
Speaker 1 (27:01):
Where do you live at? Alabama?
Speaker 9 (27:03):
Birmingham?
Speaker 4 (27:04):
I know it? Well, what's on your mind? I lived
in Huntsville ninety what was it just up sixty five
about an hour hour and a half away.
Speaker 9 (27:12):
Well, my brother had had a radio station or had
a radio political radio show for a long time. It
was called Radio Underground with Joshua Cooy and he spoke
the truth. He didn't sugarcoat things much like you and
he unfortunately he passed away a few years back. But
(27:33):
the links that people are willing to go to to
make the Republicans spear the Democrat has gotten to bullying
if you, I mean, there's no other way of putting it.
You can't walk out of your car at a gas
station with a Trump shirt on. You can't make an
(27:53):
innocent comment on Facebook about I post something the other
day about please have some friends in Israel, please pray
for them. And then before I knew it, I've got
people bashing me because I'm not supporting hout that and
(28:16):
I mean, let me, let.
Speaker 4 (28:17):
Me give you my take on social media, and I
think it does play a useful role. I think there's
good information that you can glean from it and you
can share it. And there's a lot of smart, funny,
witty people on there, but there's a lot of it's
pretty toxic. It's a toxic environment. And I will tell
you just for my own mental health purposes. You know,
(28:38):
who needs to read Hanna do you suck all day?
I mean, I just unless i'm you know, unless I
want to really feel bad about myself, Why would I
go and read posts of people that don't like me
and will never like me. I can tell you, yeah,
it's it's a divided country. The difference in terms of
when I lived in New York versus when I live
(29:01):
in Florida now as a full time resident domiciled resident
in Florida, I can tell you that it is night
and day. I am treated so differently here. It almost
has been shocking to a certain level. And however, it's
what I experience when I go to most states around
(29:22):
the country. People are extraordinarily nice and kind to me,
more than I deserve. I did not get to have
same treatment in New York, especially in recent years, and
it's gotten worse and worse and worse. And you know,
it's one of the big reasons why I said I'm out.
Speaker 1 (29:39):
I'm done.
Speaker 4 (29:40):
But I've wanted to get out for a long time
and there were very specific reasons I couldn't. And here
I am, and I'm I think it was the best
decision I've made. Anyway, Appreciate the call, my friend. Glad
you're out there, HI, quick break right back more. Your
call's coming up. Toll free our numbers eight hundred and
ninety four one, Sean if you want to be a
part of the program. As we continue, all right back
(30:01):
to our busy phones. Roy also in Alabama, next on
the Sean Hannity Show, How are you Roy?
Speaker 1 (30:08):
Great? You good? What's on your mind today?
Speaker 10 (30:12):
Someday? I'm a veteran. I'm proud veteran. I've done two
deployments in Iraq and two deployments in Afghanistan.
Speaker 8 (30:18):
That is just with a very heavy heart, Thank.
Speaker 4 (30:20):
You, my friend, for putting your life on the line
for us. We appreciate it. You're a hero.
Speaker 9 (30:26):
Thank you.
Speaker 10 (30:27):
Do you really think that if a terrorist attack happened again.
Do you think half the country that raised their hands
would in September twelve, two thousand and one, do you
think that we'd have the same response. Because this country
is so fractured. Why would we why would we want
to runch the fight when a whole bunch of Democrats,
(30:49):
a Democrat controlled country city just got destroyed.
Speaker 4 (30:54):
I don't know things have changed dramatically in the last
twenty four years, because the country did unit after nine
to eleven, and I was in New York at the time,
and the outpouring of love that came into that city
and how that city came together, I'll remember for the
rest of my life. I mean, it was deep, it
(31:15):
was profound, it was impactful, and frankly, I wish we
were more united than we are. But I don't know
how you reconcile those people that want wide open borders
and those people that want legal immigration. How do you
reconcile those that believe in limited government, lower taxes, less
bureaucracy and what the Green New Deal socialists want. How
do you reconcile those that want defund dismantle, no bail laws,
(31:39):
reimagining police departments versus those that believe in simple law
and order and safety and security. How do you reconcile
those that believe in peace through strength versus those that
are outright appeasers in some cases even sympathizing with terrorists.
Speaker 1 (31:58):
I don't know.
Speaker 4 (31:59):
I mean, these are very, very troubling times, and I
think that there really is only one answer, and that's
for the right people to be in power. And that's
why this selection in two hundred days is so important. Anyway,
I got a roll, but good call. You raise a
great question. You really do
But we'll come in your city one of day I get.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Seen your comfort zone will be desire, holl a tale.
Speaker 1 (00:14):
And if you want a little bang in a union.
Speaker 3 (00:16):
And come along.
Speaker 4 (00:20):
In this moment, don't mister president, don't stop it.
Speaker 1 (00:26):
Support Israel with respect.
Speaker 5 (00:29):
Go to Amazon and buy a spine online.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
Overturning rope was just the opening act, just the opening act.
Speaker 1 (00:39):
Of a larger strategy.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
To take women's rights and freedoms.
Speaker 1 (00:49):
Believe it or not.
Speaker 6 (00:50):
Only two hundred days left till you get to vote.
Speaker 1 (00:56):
But we'll come in to your city against and saying
you a conco song.
Speaker 6 (01:05):
From coast to coast, from border to border, from c
to Shining Sea. Sean Kennedy is on.
Speaker 4 (01:19):
All right, thanks Scott Shannon and our two Sean Hannity's
show Toll Free. It's eight hundred and ninety four one, Shawn,
if you want to be a part of the program.
I got a note earlier today. Uh, and I've been
saying this of a person that was in the courtroom
at the Trump trial in New York City today. You
can't imagine the panel, not one person. And this was
(01:41):
sent to a friend who then forwarded it to me.
Reads the post. Meaning the New York Post, or watch Fox,
watches Fox, or listens to talk radio. Quote, he is
screwed and literally, you know it's kind of liberal. You
just see liberal new Yorker after liberal new Yorker that
get their news from Google, MPR, CNN, and the New
(02:03):
York Times. I have yet to see one working class person. Now,
the judge in this case was scolding the press for
reporting too much information.
Speaker 1 (02:13):
He said, use common sense.
Speaker 4 (02:15):
What was a little ambiguous in his remarks, And he
addressed the press directly and telling them that reporting on
too much background information about the jurors defeats the purpose
of anonymity. And he said, but I'm directing the press,
and this is weird. He said, the press is certainly
able and permitted to write about anything that's on the record,
(02:36):
because it's on the record. But I'm directing that the
press simply applies common sense.
Speaker 1 (02:40):
Well, what does that even mean? How do you interpret that?
Speaker 4 (02:43):
I mean, if you say so and so is from
this place, in this profession, of this age, race, whatever
whatever demographic information you want to give out, I mean,
you got to explain that. Of course, prosecutors are furious
Trump violated the gag order, you know, seven times. But
all the other people in the trial are free to
say anything that they want. We talked about that yesterday.
(03:05):
I've said from the beginning, I don't think this is
a fair venue. I don't believe that Donald Trump can
get an unbiased jury in this case. We did have
one juror that was dismissed and immediately races out to
the cameras of MSDNC and talks about her time being
going through this jury process.
Speaker 1 (03:26):
Let's listen, I do. This is Cat.
Speaker 2 (03:30):
She runs a VC fundier in Manhattan for folks that
are over sixty years of age. She was just dismissed
as a potential juror.
Speaker 1 (03:39):
What happened?
Speaker 2 (03:39):
Why were you dismissed?
Speaker 7 (03:41):
Because I couldn't be impartial.
Speaker 2 (03:43):
You couldn't be impartial. So when judge asked that hand,
can you be impartial? You raised your hand and you
said you cannot exactly. Wow, when did you first come
on Tuesday? On Tuesday, and at that point, when did
you realize that this was a trial involving the ex
president of the United States, Donald tru.
Speaker 7 (04:00):
Were here on Tuesday from nine am. But we realized
that it's about this case. On four pm. We went
into the courtroom and we showed Donald Trump. You went
into the court four pm.
Speaker 2 (04:14):
On Tuesday, see Donald Trump.
Speaker 8 (04:16):
Yeah, we didn't know before that.
Speaker 1 (04:17):
What was your first thought.
Speaker 6 (04:19):
I was shocked.
Speaker 7 (04:21):
I was sitting on the second row, like six feet away,
and when I realized that Trump is there, I was like,
oh wow, I couldn't believe it.
Speaker 2 (04:33):
What about the people around you?
Speaker 7 (04:34):
Everybody was shocked. Everybody was frozen, like frozen, no expressions, nothing,
We were all you know, did he did that was
the case?
Speaker 8 (04:44):
Did he look back at you?
Speaker 2 (04:45):
Did that the attorneys look back at you at that time?
Speaker 7 (04:48):
Sometimes Trump would turn his head. Yeah, but that was it. Yeah,
he didn't stand up or anything.
Speaker 2 (04:56):
Were you following the case before this? I didn't really
until you're too busy, but you knew he was on trial,
or you knew he was I.
Speaker 7 (05:03):
Knew, Yeah, it's just the headlines. But yeah, too busy
to read the debates. Have you ever served as a
jur before? No, that's my first time because I just
became a citizen in August. Yeah, that was my first call.
Speaker 2 (05:17):
And so you just became a citizen of the United States.
Does that mean you've never voted in the presidential exactly
called to be a juror, and this is the jury
that you are called to. Yes, what was unbelievable. That
is unbelievable. I know, what was your impression of Donald
Trump when you saw him?
Speaker 7 (05:37):
You know he looked less orange, definitely, like more yellowish yellow.
Speaker 1 (05:45):
No thing ex than that.
Speaker 7 (05:46):
He looks He doesn't look angry or I think he
looks bored, like he wants this to finish and go
do his stuff.
Speaker 4 (05:56):
That's how Yeah, he looks bored, but it looks less orange.
And now the fundamental question here is whether that whether
Donald Trump in a city that had what twelve percent
or less than twelve percent of the electorate vote for him,
can get an impartial jury here to weigh in on this,
as Roger Severino, vice president of Domestic Policy at Heritage
(06:19):
and Trump's former director of the Office of Civil Rights
at the Health and Human Services and anyway has a
lot of experience as a trial attorney in jury selection. First,
the ambiguity of the judge's comments, Oh, you have every
right to report on what goes on in the courtroom,
but use common sense about what you say about jurors.
Speaker 1 (06:41):
I mean, what does that mean? How does anyone determine that.
Speaker 4 (06:45):
All we have ever talked about is where in New
York they're from and where they get the news from
for the most part, you know, or whether they're a
male or female, or what demographics they may fit.
Speaker 1 (06:56):
But that's about it.
Speaker 3 (06:57):
Yeah, it's very unusual. Trials are supposed to be public
to ensure there's transparency because a person's life and freedom
are on the line in criminal trials, so you want
to have the public be able to see what goes on.
In a free society, you don't do trials behind closed doors.
That's what you do in communist countries where people get disappeared.
So there has to be a role for the media
(07:18):
to be there, and it's very important to get insights
into what this jury pool is going to be that
gets selected. So the media is important to be reporting on. Okay,
this is a type of questions they are being asked.
It's a judge asking the right questions. Are the lawyers
acting within bounds? And what about the jurors? Are the
missing key aspects of potential bias because again we have
(07:39):
the former president's freedom on the line and a lot
of the benefit of doubt in our constitutional system protects
the innocent and rightly so there's a real question. So
whether President Trump can get an impartial jury in Manhattan,
that's a real question, and we're seeing a lot of
that playout given the overwhelming number of jurors that have
already been dismissed because they admitted, to their credit, they
couldn't be fair with President.
Speaker 1 (07:59):
Trump, you know, to their credit. I will share that view.
Speaker 4 (08:02):
By the way, the Associated Press two thirds of Americans
are not convinced that Alvin Bragg's case is even legitimate.
One thing, there are a number of things that I
doubt this story is ever going to learn, at least
in that court room. One is that the judge himself
voted I'm sorry, donated to Joe Biden in twenty twenty
(08:23):
to the issue of his daughter in political connections, and
that brings up the issue of recusals. I don't think
they're going to learn about the gag order preventing Donald
Trump from going out and speaking about the case, which
I think is a violation of his First Amendment rights.
You know, I thought what former ag Barr said, this
is a real threat to democracy than not being the
(08:46):
progressive left, and how this case is an abomination, and
I think he's exactly right here.
Speaker 1 (08:52):
I think Stephen A.
Speaker 4 (08:53):
Smith is right when he said he believes Democrats won
Trump convicted to avoid facing him an election now two
hundred days outside of the I think tipping point election
for this country. I have a greater sense of urgency
that I've ever had. And there's a lot that I
think that this jury's never going to know about this case.
(09:14):
They're not going to know that the statute limitations have
brought out. They're not going to know that that Alvin
Bragg is now reaching into federal law as a means
of sort of justifying this case a guy that had
reduced felony charges to misdemeanor sixty percent of the time.
Except of your last name's Trump, it goes in the
other direction. I don't think they're going to hear any
(09:36):
of that.
Speaker 3 (09:36):
And President Trump will have a lot of arguments on
appeal if he were to be convicted.
Speaker 1 (09:42):
Okay, on appeal after conviction.
Speaker 4 (09:45):
What are the odds that that is taking care of
and handled before the election.
Speaker 3 (09:49):
Yeah, that the difficulty. We know what the plan was.
These claims could have been brought years ago, literally years ago,
but they waited conveniently at a time they put President
trumpet maximum political parle. Now by and large, it has
blown up in their faces. The more the radical left
goes attacking President Trump with lawfare, the more popular he
has become, the more support he's gotten because people know
(10:11):
this is abuse of the justice system. It is so ridiculous.
At this point, American see right through it. The question
is does this Manhattan jury see right through it? And
the points you raised earlier, there's so many things in
the background that the jurors are probably not going to
be aware of why this case was brought at all. Now,
it is interesting that two jurors that got through so far,
and there's so a few to go, are lawyers. And
(10:34):
that's very interesting to me because I served on a jury.
I was a jury form in years ago, and it
tends to happen that one or two people start to
dominate the conversations. And I had a personality where I'd
started to dominate the conversation, and that makes a tremendous difference.
And lawyers might have an advantage here. And if we
get a lawyer that says, you know what, this case
(10:55):
doesn't make any sense. That just looks at the law dispassionately.
What does this have to do with campaign finance when
we're talking about business records under state law? Does this
make any sense to anybody? It's such a weak case
that you might have an impartial lawyer that says, to
the other jurors, you know what, this doesn't make any sense,
and according to law, he's going to be not guilty. Alternatively,
you might get a liberal Manhattan lawyer that doesn't like Trump.
(11:17):
So it could cut both ways.
Speaker 1 (11:19):
Oh, I agree with all of that.
Speaker 4 (11:21):
I mean, so you think actually that might be favorable
to Donald Trump.
Speaker 1 (11:24):
The two attorneys are on.
Speaker 3 (11:25):
This case, it's very possible. I mean they got through,
which means Trump's attorneys didn't find enough reason to strike them.
And they still have a couple what they're called peremptory
challenges where they don't have to explain why they're striking
a juror, right if they find cause in indications of bias.
There's unlimited people that could pull out if there's evidence
of bias.
Speaker 9 (11:46):
But they also, let's get you a.
Speaker 3 (11:48):
Limited number is parameter, right, they could just say, you
know what, we just have a bad hunch about this person.
They're off the jury. There's a few more peremptory strikes left,
and they're saving it all.
Speaker 4 (11:56):
Right, quick break, more on the latest in this ridiculous
Trump trial in New York. More with Roger Severino. Right,
we continue now with analysis of jury selection in the
Trump trial with Roger Severino, Vice President Domestic Policy at Heritage.
Let's get to the issue of the gag order and
(12:16):
the recusal issue of the judge in the case. Do
you think the gag order itself is constitutional? Do you
believe that in this case, knowing what we know about
the judge, just the fact that he donated to Biden
in twenty twenty, I think would be caused for recusal.
The issue that has been brought up by at least
to phonic at others about the daughter and political activities
(12:40):
that she's been involved in that even are affected by
this case, would that be grounds for recusal? Based on
the law of New York, which I've laid out many times.
I won't read here again, but do you think this
is grounds for recusal?
Speaker 3 (12:56):
Recusal's always tossed because the burden of proof is really high,
because it's so politicized, These questions need to be asked
about this judge. The problem is the judge has already
issued a gag order on President Trump, and again, the
timing of this trial was trying to inflict the maximum
political harm to President Trump's being president, to deprive the
American people of getting their say through the ballot box
(13:19):
instead of putting it in the hands of twelve jurors
from Manhattan. That's been their plan. Now, what Trump can
do about it is make the case that this is
further evidence of a weaponized justice system, but not a
republic level. And he has a constitutional right to be
able to say that, to petition the government for redresses
to protest it. He is running for president of the
(13:39):
United States, and he's been deprived of the ability to
talk about one of the main issues, and the main
issue is he needs to He wants to fix the
broken justice system that has been weaponized against political enemies.
Speaker 8 (13:52):
Right.
Speaker 3 (13:52):
That is a distortion of the constitutional structure. That is
a key campaign event, and he's living that nightmare right now.
And the judges on precurious grounds to try to limit
a former president from being able to campaign effectively on
an issue of public public concern.
Speaker 4 (14:07):
Well, the judge has been very clear that Donald Trump
must be in court every single day or he will
send him to jail for however long this trial lasts.
Speaker 1 (14:17):
Estimates are a month or longer.
Speaker 4 (14:20):
That in fact, Donald Trump will be literally seating the
entire playing field that is swinging states in this election.
To his opponent Joe Biden, who's been in Pennsylvania for
the last couple of days. Does that, And I would
argue too that if Democrats had their way, Donald Trump
would be in a court room from now until November
(14:40):
fifth and not have any opportunity to run a real campaign.
At at some point does the Justice Department step in
and follow what quote is not unwritten policy that you
don't you don't do this, but just prior to an election.
Speaker 3 (14:58):
Yeah, there is long standing policy if we don't bring
political prosecutions right before an election, and that norm has
been shattered. But the DOJ it has all the hallmarks
of the deep state, and they went after Trump with
the Russia hoax. They now have been further weaponized under Biden,
given a complete free reign to go after him. So
all those norms of non political interference have been thrown
(15:19):
off the window when it comes to Trump, and we've
seen it in the kid gloves treatment they've done with
President Biden, not going after him or his son for
tax evation, for gun charges, for the documents of the
secret documents and confidential information that President Biden should not
have had in his garage next to his corvette and
in the open garage, all these things where you get
(15:41):
this differential treatment, a two tier system of justice. And
that's why President Trump has promised to clean house if
he gets back into office. That is a popular message.
But there are all these forces from judge gag orders
to the cases brought against them themselves to try to
put them in jail and to try to bankrupt him
that want to preserve the status quo. The WEAPONI doj
to go after proloconomies that that has to change. This
(16:03):
cannot go on.
Speaker 1 (16:04):
It really is unbelievable.
Speaker 4 (16:05):
Anyway, we appreciate your time, Roger Sebarino, thank you so
much for your insight. It's going to get more interesting
by the day, that's for sure. Eight hundred ninety four
one Shawn us On number. If you want to be
a part of the program, Hi twenty five to the
top of the hour are toll free telephone numbers. Eight
hundred nine to four one Sean, if you want to
be a part of the program, want to remind you
about our friends of Preborn and Hannity Baby Shower. We've
(16:28):
been talking about Linda Yes.
Speaker 5 (16:31):
So we have all of these amazing moms out there
and we want to bring more moms into the fold.
And the only way we can do that is by
showing these young moms that are pregnant, even if it's unplanned,
what that beauty is inside of them. It is a
real life and ultrasound are twenty eight bucks. If we
can get one thousand people to donate five hundred bucks,
and please know we get it. It's a lot of money.
(16:51):
Biden is crushing us, but it's up to us to
look beyond it and help save a life. So please
donate some money. Go to preborn dot com for slash Seawn.
That's sea n where you can dial the number two
fifty on your cell phone you say the keyword baby.
Speaker 10 (17:05):
Please.
Speaker 5 (17:06):
Guys, Mother's Day is around the corner. We're really trying
to give whatever you can. It's going towards saving a life.
Plan parent put is taking your money and they're killing
babies left and right. We're trying to do the exact
opposite here. Please help us do this for Mother's Day?
Speaker 4 (17:19):
All right, preborn dot com, slash sean or pound two
fifty on your cell keyword baby anyway eight hundred and
nine four one sean if you want to be a
part of the program.
Speaker 1 (17:30):
We have so much to talk about today.
Speaker 4 (17:32):
Well it's I know it's a little off the beaten track,
but when I saw this, I said, there's no way
this could be true.
Speaker 1 (17:39):
But here's the headline. It is.
Speaker 4 (17:42):
California lawmakers say buying sixteen seventeen year olds for sex
is not a felony.
Speaker 1 (17:49):
California Democrats.
Speaker 4 (17:51):
They decided this past Tuesday that purchasing a sixteen or
seventeen year old for sex is not a felony. Democrats
in the Senate Public's Safety Committee forced amendments on the
bill of the author that the author, Shannon Grove of Bakersfield,
objected to. Those amendments denied her efforts to protect sixteen
and seventeen year old children from being purchased as part
(18:13):
of a commercial sex trafficking ring.
Speaker 1 (18:16):
Backstory.
Speaker 4 (18:17):
Current California law makes it a misdemeanor for anyone who
purchases or solicits a miner for sex. It only carries
a jail sentence of two days to one year in
a maximum of ten thousand dollars in terms of a fine.
And last year, Grove pushed through the Senate Bill fourteen,
which we classified human traffickers of miners for the purpose
(18:40):
of sex as a serious felony under the law. Now,
while SB fourteen went after human traffickers who are selling
children for sex, her new proposal goes after the buyers anyway.
Her proposal would make it a felony to purchase or
solicit any minor for sex, whether or not the person
knew that minor was under the age of eighteen. I mean,
(19:03):
what's going on with our society? This is what we're
talking about. The big piece in the New York Post
today psychiatrists warned youth gender change must never be questioned.
You can't question it, and then you get into this
gender affirming psychiatric care. Gerald Posner writes the article as
the first textbook dedicated to providing affirming, intersectional and evidence
(19:29):
in forms psychiatric care for transgender, non binary, and or
gender expansive people. Close examination reveals it's an extremist handbook
that could put kids on a fast track from the
therapist chair the life changing hormones, treatments and surgery in
(19:49):
the textbook, he points out, he believes is more than
just a curiosity with the American Psychiatric Association's reference in
this book that is widely used in medical sk by specialists, etc.
As a practicing psychiatrist and mother of three in Oklahoma
City based psychiatrist told me, I've lost sleep knowing this
(20:10):
textbook is being taught in medical schools and reticidencies sold
as peer reviewed, necessary, life saving and evidence based and
it is simply not. I mean, that's a pretty big
shockwave that Secret Files revealed last month that members of
the leading transgender healthcare organization privately admitting that children in
(20:31):
adolescents are incapable of giving informed consent and what is
irreversible in terms of, you know, the medical procedures to
which they would be subjected for such care. A three
hundred and eighty eight page report from the UK, named
after the chief author, a pediatrician, Hillary Cass, excoriated the
(20:51):
lack of scientific evidence for the use of hormones and
surgery for gender questioning minors. One result is Britain's banning
of puberty blocks for those under eighteen. But this is
what this is where these are the issues I never
thought we'd discuss, like squatting, stealing somebody else's home. Unreal.
(21:12):
A lot of people lost their ability to dial nine
to one one yesterday in three states, according to officials.
Is a lot of these instances happening seemingly not related.
Speaker 1 (21:23):
But you know, you begin a question what's going on here?
In the UK?
Speaker 4 (21:26):
By the way, lawmakers are voting decisively in favor of
legislation to ban smoking in Britain completely. The Tobacco and
Vapespill now one step closer to becoming law after clearing
the first turtle in Parliament. The bill would make it
illegal to sell tobacco to anyone born after January first,
two thousand and nine, with the legal age for the
(21:47):
purchase of tobacco products increasing by one year every year
until it eventually covers the entire population.
Speaker 1 (21:54):
How about freedom?
Speaker 4 (21:54):
But if you decide to make the decision to smoke,
then you can't expect the rest of society to pay
for the whole care costs. All right, let's get to
our phones. A lot of you standing by patiently. Let's
say hi to Athena. She's in South Carolina. How are you, Athena.
It was an article today that there are many conservatives
that they are racing over to South Carolina, and South
(22:17):
Carolina's growing by leaps and bounds, and all the data
that we've seen on it confirms that.
Speaker 8 (22:24):
Yes, that's true. And good afternoon to you and Linda.
I love both of you.
Speaker 1 (22:28):
And who do you love more? Me or Linda?
Speaker 8 (22:30):
Oh, don't put me in that position.
Speaker 1 (22:32):
I'm putting in that position. I love good answer. That's
a good answer.
Speaker 5 (22:38):
You can tell him you love him more. Everyone loves
Sewan Moore and I am at piece of that.
Speaker 4 (22:44):
They're a piece of that because she thinks she's superior.
That's why. Anyway, what's on your mind?
Speaker 8 (22:51):
I'm'll be real quick and then then I will hang
up and let you give me your answer. But you know,
tell me what you think.
Speaker 10 (22:57):
But this is it.
Speaker 8 (22:58):
I hear you all the time and you say, you know,
you know, you've got to get people to register blah
blah blah blah. And we did that and we had
millions more votes last time, but it didn't it didn't work.
I think this is a good idea because you do
it and you have the connection. But every conservative and
now that Laura Trump is an associate associate director or
whatever of the GOP, you know that they should, you know,
(23:22):
just like they pay for ads, well, they should pay
all the conservatives to go to town halls. To have
town halls and have the local people, the local representatives
and council and senatives that are running for office there
and also talk about Trump's successes when he.
Speaker 9 (23:38):
Was in office.
Speaker 8 (23:39):
But get these people in town halls so the other
people that don't because like yesterday, I was talking to
somebody online and he said that President Trump had ninety
one sexual assaults and nobody like that should be president.
They believe the craft that they hear on regular TV.
So we need town halls and to pay all of
(23:59):
y'all because there's there's hundreds of you, Stacy on the right,
you know, Terence, everybody, the whole townhouse. But they can't
afford to do that.
Speaker 10 (24:08):
But with the GEO, well for it.
Speaker 8 (24:12):
Go ahead.
Speaker 4 (24:12):
Let me let me give you. Let me give you
some good news. Is Laura Trump happened to be on
Hannity last night. I asked her for an update and
their efforts to get people to vote early, vote by mail,
and she says they're making a lot of progress. I
asked her about the progress about legal ballot harvesting. She
said they're making a lot of progress there, and then
(24:32):
she gave out a website. And on the website, you know,
they're they're letting people sign up to become trained poll watchers.
And that's I think every single voting precinct in the
country needs trained poll watchers that get to watch the
voting all day and the vote counting all night. Now,
(24:52):
one thing Democrats won't be able to do is what
they were able to pull off in twenty twenty, which
is many states have laws that say that partisan observers
get to watch the vote counting, and because of COVID,
there were no accommodations made and as a result, you know,
people that were partisan observers were one thousand and two
thousand feet away if they were even allowed in the room.
(25:15):
That's not going to happen this time. So I think
that that hopefully brings more integrity. I am just telling
all of you, and some of you have been angry
at me that I'm saying this. You're telling people, you're
giving them bad information. No I'm not giving them bad information.
You cannot start out election day down hundreds of thousands
(25:36):
of votes and hope that people show up that one
day in droves and are able to overcome what is
the banking of votes by Democrats. Republicans have got to
embrace early voting, voting by mail, and it's not the
system I want. I want election day to be a
(25:59):
national holiday. I want one day voting, not thirty days voting.
I want I want voter ID, I want signature verification.
I want chain of custody controls where we any any
ballots that are mailed in or under camera, underwatch the
whole time. I want updated voter rolls, and I want
partisan observers. But we can't change those laws unless we
(26:22):
win elections first. So the system we're stuck with we
better embrace and we better master, or we're not going
to maximize the potential vote of conservatives and Republicans.
Speaker 8 (26:37):
That's correct, I agree. I agree with all that, but
you know, he's got to be our president. I appreciate
you taking the time to talk to me, and you'll
have a blessed day too.
Speaker 4 (26:48):
You have a blessed day as well. Eight hundred and
nine to four one Sean, if you want to be
a part of the program, David in Alabama? Where in
Alabama are you?
Speaker 1 (26:55):
David? I'm doing our rat sir, And where are you?
And Alibaba?
Speaker 10 (27:00):
What do you say?
Speaker 1 (27:01):
Where do you live at? Alabama?
Speaker 9 (27:03):
Birmingham?
Speaker 4 (27:04):
I know it? Well, what's on your mind? I lived
in Huntsville ninety what was it just up sixty five
about an hour hour and a half away.
Speaker 9 (27:12):
Well, my brother had had a radio station or had
a radio political radio show for a long time. It
was called Radio Underground with Joshua Cooy and he spoke
the truth. He didn't sugarcoat things much like you and
he unfortunately he passed away a few years back. But
(27:33):
the links that people are willing to go to to
make the Republicans spear the Democrat has gotten to bullying
if you, I mean, there's no other way of putting it.
You can't walk out of your car at a gas
station with a Trump shirt on. You can't make an
(27:53):
innocent comment on Facebook about I post something the other
day about please have some friends in Israel, please pray
for them. And then before I knew it, I've got
people bashing me because I'm not supporting hout that and
(28:16):
I mean, let me, let.
Speaker 4 (28:17):
Me give you my take on social media, and I
think it does play a useful role. I think there's
good information that you can glean from it and you
can share it. And there's a lot of smart, funny,
witty people on there, but there's a lot of it's
pretty toxic. It's a toxic environment. And I will tell
you just for my own mental health purposes. You know,
(28:38):
who needs to read Hanna do you suck all day?
I mean, I just unless i'm you know, unless I
want to really feel bad about myself, Why would I
go and read posts of people that don't like me
and will never like me. I can tell you, yeah,
it's it's a divided country. The difference in terms of
when I lived in New York versus when I live
(29:01):
in Florida now as a full time resident domiciled resident
in Florida, I can tell you that it is night
and day. I am treated so differently here. It almost
has been shocking to a certain level. And however, it's
what I experience when I go to most states around
(29:22):
the country. People are extraordinarily nice and kind to me,
more than I deserve. I did not get to have
same treatment in New York, especially in recent years, and
it's gotten worse and worse and worse. And you know,
it's one of the big reasons why I said I'm out.
Speaker 1 (29:39):
I'm done.
Speaker 4 (29:40):
But I've wanted to get out for a long time
and there were very specific reasons I couldn't. And here
I am, and I'm I think it was the best
decision I've made. Anyway, Appreciate the call, my friend. Glad
you're out there, HI, quick break right back more. Your
call's coming up. Toll free our numbers eight hundred and
ninety four one, Sean if you want to be a
part of the program. As we continue, all right back
(30:01):
to our busy phones. Roy also in Alabama, next on
the Sean Hannity Show, How are you Roy?
Speaker 1 (30:08):
Great? You good? What's on your mind today?
Speaker 10 (30:12):
Someday? I'm a veteran. I'm proud veteran. I've done two
deployments in Iraq and two deployments in Afghanistan.
Speaker 8 (30:18):
That is just with a very heavy heart, Thank.
Speaker 4 (30:20):
You, my friend, for putting your life on the line
for us. We appreciate it. You're a hero.
Speaker 9 (30:26):
Thank you.
Speaker 10 (30:27):
Do you really think that if a terrorist attack happened again.
Do you think half the country that raised their hands
would in September twelve, two thousand and one, do you
think that we'd have the same response. Because this country
is so fractured. Why would we why would we want
to runch the fight when a whole bunch of Democrats,
(30:49):
a Democrat controlled country city just got destroyed.
Speaker 4 (30:54):
I don't know things have changed dramatically in the last
twenty four years, because the country did unit after nine
to eleven, and I was in New York at the time,
and the outpouring of love that came into that city
and how that city came together, I'll remember for the
rest of my life. I mean, it was deep, it
(31:15):
was profound, it was impactful, and frankly, I wish we
were more united than we are. But I don't know
how you reconcile those people that want wide open borders
and those people that want legal immigration. How do you
reconcile those that believe in limited government, lower taxes, less
bureaucracy and what the Green New Deal socialists want. How
do you reconcile those that want defund dismantle, no bail laws,
(31:39):
reimagining police departments versus those that believe in simple law
and order and safety and security. How do you reconcile
those that believe in peace through strength versus those that
are outright appeasers in some cases even sympathizing with terrorists.
Speaker 1 (31:58):
I don't know.
Speaker 4 (31:59):
I mean, these are very, very troubling times, and I
think that there really is only one answer, and that's
for the right people to be in power. And that's
why this selection in two hundred days is so important. Anyway,
I got a roll, but good call. You raise a
great question. You really do
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.