May 21, 2024 • 29 mins
Congressman Matt Gaetz, of Florida, was in the courtroom and is appalled at the continuing weaponization of our justice system at every turn.
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):
Stay right here for our final news round up and
information Overload.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
All right, News Roundup, Information Overload. Our are toll free
telephone numbers eight hundred and ninety four one sean if
you want to be a part of the program. So
Matt Gates had been in the courtroom with President Trump,
and we had him on and we got his take
on all that's been going on in the courtroom. And
now we see the judge desperately trying to move the
(00:27):
case in Alvin Bragg's direction because it's fallen apart so disastrously.
He took to the floor of the House of Representatives
and talked about the election interference that is going on
in this courtroom.
Speaker 3 (00:41):
And here's what he said.
Speaker 4 (00:42):
I rise to alert this House of election interference that
is going on in a Manhattan courtroom right now. And
we ought to assert our equities to ensure that federal
elections aren't subject to this type of devious behavior. This
entire case in New York is based on Michael Cohen.
Speaker 5 (00:58):
He's one of the few.
Speaker 4 (00:59):
People walking around the planet Earth today who's lied to
all three branches of government. He lied to the investigators,
he lied to his own sentencing judge, he lied to
this very Congress. But as if that wasn't enough, Michael
Cohen lied to this very jury Tuesday. There's a reason
he was held to the end of this case. They
(01:19):
were hoping to corroborate him. They couldn't. It has failed
and it should be dismissed. And otherwise the Congress should
certainly assert our equities to stop election interference.
Speaker 3 (01:28):
Thank you, Matam speak are you'll beck anyway?
Speaker 2 (01:30):
Congressman Matt Gates, he's with the Panhandle out of Florida. Sarah,
welcome back to the program.
Speaker 3 (01:35):
How are you?
Speaker 5 (01:36):
Thanks so much for having me, Sean. And remember this
is a federal election case. But the federal prosecutors at
the Southern District of New York who looked at it,
they said it wasn't worthy of a charge. And then
the Federal Election Commission, who also looked at this, did
not believe that any crime had been committed, that any
prosecution was necessary. So this is a not legal theory
(02:01):
where a local DA is trying to bring this case.
And it really fell apart before our very eyes when
Michael Cohen there was exposed not just being for a
liar of yesteryear in times past, but even this, in
this trial, before this jury, lying about his communications and
(02:22):
the substance to those communications as part of all this
nonsense that they've tried to criminalize because they want to
keep Trump off the campaign trail. So it's quite something.
And you know, I don't know that your listeners can
really appreciate how dank and dreary this place is. You
think about New York being this grandiose place with all
the atmospherics of the Big Apple. The reality is, I
(02:45):
think this courtroom got frozen in time about fifty years
ago and hasn't changed. And it's incredibly close proximity. And
you get to see the smirk on this judge's face.
He believed that this prosecution was his entry ticket in
the high society of New York. Did he would be
celebrated forever as the judge who got to put away
(03:07):
Donald Trump? And he's desperately trying to preserve that despite
all of the evidence cutting against the principal witness for
the prosecution, Michael Cohen, a liar proven over and over again.
Speaker 2 (03:20):
What did you make of the judge's meltdown yesterday as
relates to Costello?
Speaker 3 (03:24):
You trying to stir redrown.
Speaker 2 (03:26):
I mean, I mean, if it wasn't so ridiculous, it's laughable.
And then of course Bradley Smith, former FEC chair who
I interviewed, I played it early in the program and said,
there's no crime committed here at all, and of course
preventing the jury from hearing from him and limiting what
they could hear from Bob Costello that would impeach everything
(03:47):
Cone said. And now here we are, we'll have closing arguments.
I assume that in closing arguments they'll probably try and
limit what the defense has to say there and yet
to give free license to the prosecution. And I mean,
did we really need to hear Stormy Daniels talks to
dead people or the salacious details that are immaterial, irrelevant
(04:07):
to the case that he allowed to drone on and
on and on, did we really you know, even as
it has nothing to do with the case, But David
Pecker talking about catch and kill operations that he does
for so many people, again irrelevant, immaterial to the case,
and the allegation and even the charges his novel illegal
(04:28):
theory as this is, and it just really it does
begin to make one wonder, you know what jury instructions
are going to look like and and now I think
the judge in this case is purposely trying to tip
the scale back in favor of the prosecution because they
got destroyed, and he knows damn well they got destroyed.
Maybe a lot of things can't be that dumb.
Speaker 5 (04:49):
It's an incredibly rare and powerful thing when someone's own
lawyer stands up and says that that person has been
a liar. That was what was occurring with my for
Cohen's former lawyer, Bob Costello, And it seemed that really
triggered the judge. That that got the judge so enraged
that he cleared the courtroom and had this kind of bizarre.
Speaker 3 (05:12):
Magical the way.
Speaker 2 (05:13):
The only other person that I know gets people that
pissed off.
Speaker 3 (05:16):
As you how Trump, I guess.
Speaker 5 (05:20):
I mean, I've never gotten a.
Speaker 2 (05:21):
Judge that me And by not talking about I'm not
talking about a judge, I'm just speaking generally.
Speaker 3 (05:26):
I'm all right, I'm joking around.
Speaker 6 (05:27):
Go ahead, yeah, no.
Speaker 5 (05:29):
While witnesses before Congress procure I'll plead guilty to getting
a few of them hot under the collar. But but
here for a judge to be so intemperate is indicative
if someone displeased with the direction of this trial and
how it seems to be going on the presentation of
the evidence, and so I think you're right to be
(05:50):
concerned about what these jury instructions look like. I would
expect that a good amount of the summation from pot
Blanche will revisit all of the points he scored during
the cross examination of Michael Cohen. They the thievery stealing
from the Trump organization. This wasn't someone who was just
(06:12):
lying to protect Donald Trump. This was someone at all
material times was working for his own benefit, for his
own financial benefit, to try to move into a societal
governmental class that he thought he deserved to be in.
And it may have just been an inter meddler in
this whole bizarre matter.
Speaker 2 (06:32):
While I thought we were definitely headed at a minimum
to a hung jury, maybe an outright acquittal, I think
the judge now is trying to tip the scales here
in favor of the prosecution, and he's doing everything he
can possibly do. You know, and I'm listening to people
on TV. I really think they're stupid and dumb and
(06:53):
don't know what the hell they're talking about. I know,
the Trump team rightly has put forward a motion to dismiss.
Speaker 3 (06:59):
That's not going to happen.
Speaker 2 (07:00):
I know everybody's talked about, well, the right thing to
do would be a directive verdict. We know that's not
going to happen. We know that this judge, the Biden
downer judge with conflicts who should have accused himself. We
know he's gone all in now with the prosecution and
he's now going to double triple, quadruple down on it.
Speaker 3 (07:19):
And the media mob they're doing the same.
Speaker 2 (07:21):
Let me play a quick cut of you know, Lawrence O'Donnell,
Lawrence lost his mind. He's actually trying to downplay Michael
Cohen and the fact the revelation yesterday that he's stealing,
you know, tens of thousands of dollars from the Trump organization.
Speaker 7 (07:37):
He very effectively got Michael Cohen to say to agree
that yes, he stole thirty thousand dollars. Later, when Cohen
was asked about that on redirect by the prosecution, it
didn't really sound like stealing thirty thousand dollars. It sounded
a lot like Michael Cohen doing the little that he
could within that calculation to rebalance the bonus He thought
(08:00):
he deserved, and it still came out as less than
the bonus he thought he deserved and the bonus he'd
gotten here.
Speaker 2 (08:06):
Before trying to con admitted he stole from the organization.
What part of it does somebody at ms DNC not understand.
Speaker 5 (08:18):
Laurence O'Donnell has acknowledged how devastating the cross examination was
of Michael Cohen, and now he's trying to suggest that
there was some rehabilitation. But it's not just the volume
of lies that will, I think, encompass the testimony of
Michael Cohen. It's also the nature of those lies. The
key distinction that Todd Blanche brilliantly brought out is that
(08:42):
Michael Cohen was not just lying because the job required it,
or because Donald Trump wanted him to, or it was
for Trump's benefit. Cohen was someone who was just a
gratuitous liar for his own benefit. And when he admitted
that it was stealing on cross examination, it showed that
(09:03):
the prosecution didn't really lay a sufficient foundation. You know,
in court, you always want to get the bad information
out yourself. You don't want the other side drawing it
out of your witnesses. And in this case, the worst
of Michael Cohen was undeniably drawn out by Todd's lanch
and I think it left a jury wondering when or
not this whole thing was done for retribution, because actually
(09:25):
Michael Cohen wasn't the inner circle guy that he thought
he was once Donald Trump was transitioning out of private
life and into the presidency. And this is a circumstance
of a sad man who's dinner and trying to take
it out through a criminal prosecution that again, the FEC
didn't believe was proper. The Southern District of New York
(09:45):
didn't think it was proper. The only guy who thought
this was proper was the DA who had literally campaigned
on getting Trump, had said he had gone after him
more than a hundred times. And it was a campaign
promise to bring this goofy prosecution that should not be
how criminal law is utilized in our country.
Speaker 2 (10:03):
You spend time in the at the trial, in the courtroom,
time to really really take a good hard look at
the jury. But you know a lot has happened since
the last time we spoke. How do you think all
of this and clear the courtroom and the drama yesterday?
How is this playing out in the minds of jurors.
Speaker 5 (10:23):
In your view, well, it's quite a commotion. When the
jury has to get up and leave and come back
into the room. They literally have to walk within about
two feet of Donald Trump, between Trump and the judge
in and out, and you know, to get the alternates
as well as the principal jurors from their specific seat
and specific row in and out. It showcases, you know,
(10:46):
the I think frustration on the part of the judge
that he really wanted to unload on the witness and
in some ways that only makes the jury think more
about that particular witnesses testimony. I was there for hours
upon hours of testimony with Michael Cohen and the jury,
and it was obvious to everyone in that room whether
(11:07):
they liked Trump or didn't, whether they you know, were
in the media or they're supporting a particular cause. Those
folks knew that Michael Cohen was lying when he got
caught in the lie about why he was communicating with
Keith Schiller, Donald Trump's body man.
Speaker 2 (11:27):
I mean, by the way, this is the one minute
and thirty six second call and the text messages that
actually were timestamped at the time of the call leading
up to that call about him being, you know, upset
over a fourteen year old that he described as a
stalker making phone calls to him and asking Keith Schiller
(11:48):
for help.
Speaker 5 (11:50):
Right, So, so, Michael con initially said that the only
purpose of this call was to talk about the Stormy
Daniels deal, and then text messages were unearth showing that
there was indeed a different purpose of that call. So
now Michael Con is saying, well, there were in fact
two purposes of the call, when he previously said there
was only one, and the text message suggests something else. Altogether,
(12:14):
there was one juror who seemed almost bucked out laughing
as Michael Cohen's lives were being exposed. It was almost
hard to hold back laughter because you saw this guy
get confronted with his own text messages complaining about a
fourteen year old of messages to him about the Trump
(12:35):
transition into office, and him wanting the Secret Service, Michael
Cohen wanted to know less than the Secret Service to
hunt down this fourteen year old and give him the up.
Speaker 2 (12:43):
For under any circumstances, in spite of all the prejudice
of the judge in this case, and all of the
fundamental unfairness that we've been discussing. Do you see any
scenario under which there's a guilty verdict here? Because I
would argue, even at this late hour before they head
(13:04):
into next Tuesday and closing arguments, I don't think if
I surveyed that jury, that anybody would be able to
tell me what exactly it is that Donald Trump is
being charge with.
Speaker 5 (13:16):
Yeah, I mean you are left wondering, as the viewer,
what's the crime here? Again, because you know, familiar transactions,
familiar activities, just like the David Pecker testimony was.
Speaker 6 (13:29):
If it's a.
Speaker 5 (13:29):
Crime for candidates and campaigns to try to shape the
media coverage of what they're doing and what their opponents
are doing, then they're going to need a lot more
jails for literally everyone else in American politics today. So
I think that the guilty verdict is certainly the least
likely outcome here. I can't imagine on these sacs and
(13:53):
with this twisting of the law, any reasonable person that
could conclude that President Trump had committed a crime. But remember,
they've got to get all twelve, and I think that
that is exceedingly well. I think that they're you know,
I got the sense looking into the eyes and at
least some of these jurors that there was a real
appreciation for how bizarre, strange, unfair and unjust this prosecution was.
(14:17):
And really all twelve of them should conclude that if
they're looking at the evidence and not bridled by any
preconceived notions about Donald Trump for his presidency or as policies.
Speaker 2 (14:31):
Well, we really appreciate you being with US. Congressman Matt Gates, Florida.
Thank you, eight hundred and ninety four one, Shawn on
number if you want to be a part of the program,
all right before we hit the phones here. Well, it
hasn't been a good couple of days for Joey. This
from just earlier today where Joe Biden talks about signing
up Pack and Pack and Lack Act into law.
Speaker 6 (14:55):
Let me close you this after I shigned the Pack
and Pack At Act into law.
Speaker 2 (15:03):
After I signed the Pack and Pack Adam Lack Act
into law.
Speaker 3 (15:09):
Linda, you know what that means? Can you interpret that
from me?
Speaker 8 (15:13):
I think what he was really saying is I love alpaca,
I love al paka sweaters. I'm signing a sweater law
in that all people must wear alpaca sweaters. That's what
I got from that one, just saying.
Speaker 3 (15:24):
No, unbelievable.
Speaker 2 (15:26):
Now, it's not been a very good day for a
week for clueless Joe. And by the way, it's only Tuesday,
not exactly a hard week.
Speaker 3 (15:35):
Now.
Speaker 2 (15:36):
Yesterday they had to make nine brutal corrections to his
speech to the NAACP. Nine, I mean, Biden's first mistake
at the very beginning of the speech tells the story
about Obama dispatching him to Detroit during the pandemic.
Speaker 3 (15:54):
They had to fix that mess.
Speaker 2 (15:56):
Then, moments later, Biding telling the NAACP, He's humbled to
receive this organization. In the White House transcript that crossed
that organization corrected it with award. We're cracking down on
corporate landlords who keep rents down was changed to we're
cracking down on corporate landlords to keep rents down, while
(16:18):
another unfortunate sentence describing those who took part in the
Capitol riots as erectionists corrected to insurrectionists. You know what
an erectionist is, Linda.
Speaker 8 (16:28):
I think we should ask who is it?
Speaker 3 (16:30):
Giapaul?
Speaker 6 (16:31):
Right?
Speaker 8 (16:31):
Wasn't it Giopaul who said that in front of a
full House of Congress when she was referring to Trump.
They got a lot of directionists over there.
Speaker 2 (16:38):
A lot of erectionists. Then Biden, incorrectly quoting former President Trump,
is saying that there would be bloodshed if he loses
in November. That was corrected to blood bath. As was
a moment where Biden mistakenly claimed to have saved millions
of families eight hundred thousand dollars per year in premiums.
While Biden corrected his eight hundred thousand dollars mistake during
(17:00):
the speech, he replaced it with eight thousand dollars a
year in premiums, which is also incorrect. Never mind the
millions and billions that you and I talked about yesterday.
Then he tells the White House gathering that an American
hostage is still being held by hamas is here with
us today. Wow, Like he talks to dead people, talks
(17:21):
to hostages. Now he imagines that they're in the crowd.
Obama orders him to go to Detroit during the pandemic
and help fix it. Wow, I mean, how do you
have so many mistakes in one speech? It does make
a well pretty compelling case for those that have been
saying and predicting he's not going to be on the ticket.
Speaker 3 (17:41):
I'll tell you that.
Speaker 9 (17:42):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (17:42):
Let us say hi to Tim and Tennessee. Tim, how
are you glad you called Sarah?
Speaker 6 (17:48):
Thanks so much, Sean. I'm a child attorneyments for thirty years,
and I just want to magnify what Professor Dershowitsch and
Turley and and Trake out You're saying. It's just extrait
the favoritism that's being shown by this judge and the
fact he hasn't tossed out that trial when there's no
elements of a crime. They're trying to boot a misdemeanor
(18:12):
up to a felony on a federal statute that state
courts have no jurisdiction to bring. Just incredible. And if
I were a low information New York voter, I would
be ashamed because it would be to me like the
Edmund Tennis Bridge vote.
Speaker 2 (18:27):
But Counselor, that's a problem a low information New York voter,
he just answered your question. They have no clue, and
now the judge is trying to prevent them from even
knowing the law by preventing the FEC former head from
explaining what the law actually says. He's basically trying to
(18:50):
help the prosecution recover from the disastrous trial that has
been and jury instructions are only going to be worse.
Speaker 6 (18:59):
Well, those already been in weeks ago before the Dreams
got there. They should have had those submit and the
last little thing before pre prow, before they ever started
the trial, should have been.
Speaker 2 (19:12):
How do you like the fact that Bragg, according to
a Costello, was given all of this exculpatory information that
was withheld from the grand jury?
Speaker 3 (19:21):
How do you like that little development?
Speaker 6 (19:23):
Well, that's that's clearly what we call plane air as
Brady material that should have been given and with exculpatory
Where is this their their their claim of a of
a crime being committed?
Speaker 2 (19:36):
There's so many you get you got an A plus
because that's exactly what Mark Levin's been saying.
Speaker 3 (19:41):
That's it. I'm done.
Speaker 2 (19:42):
He's been right all along anyway, Tim, I got a
roll man. Uh uh no, I've never seen anything like
this ever ever. Rhode Island, Lou Next Sean Hennity Show,
What's up, Lou Where in Rhode Island do you live?
Speaker 10 (19:55):
Well? I lived not of Providence. They live in Lincolnwrhode Island.
And it's when of places. I know because I was
on your show or the hand of the show, I
got one of your football's, your phenomenal, phenomenal host. You
greeted us all online. But anyway, I don't know, I
don't know where he stam of the Fumbshowan, you really
are an amazing.
Speaker 3 (20:16):
Person, very kind. Thank you.
Speaker 10 (20:19):
I think the gentleman. Before I talked about the exculpatory emails,
but in my situation, I have the cases, was one
hundred missing exhibits. You had the jury pool, who I
believe was pre selected, and I think what Trump is
going to watch out for, what you already know is
eighty five percent of those people are compromise and the
judges he's a lunatic. I think what he's gonna watch
(20:42):
out for is he has to get every one of
those people that were selected for the jury, because every
one of them can be compromised. In my case, I
believe the jury was actually selected, the whole pool was
actually selected before my case started, and I won't get
into that, but I think I think that's one of
the things Trump has to really look out for because,
(21:04):
as you know, these people have done a lot of planning.
They planned before the case started with the Green jury
eliminating all that exculpatory evidence and not letting it come
under their purview. And I really believe that there's a
strong possibility that the whole jury pool was pre selected
in some way. I believe they probably are shirpt and
(21:29):
circumvented the process that normally takes place in New York
and picking jury pools. So I just wanted to put
him Donold.
Speaker 2 (21:37):
Well, they're supposed to have a you know, they're not
supposed to choose a judge either, and they bypassed the
process of having a random selection and they picked a
perfect anti Trump judge. I mean, it's pretty unbelievable. But
you know, well, welcome to the state of New York,
where things are more corrupt than ever. I can tell
you that. Anyway, my friend, I appreciate it. Eight hundred
(22:00):
and ninety four one Shaw in his hard number. If
you want to be a part of the program, Sharon,
Sharon in my free state of Florida.
Speaker 3 (22:06):
Hey, Sharon, how are you fine?
Speaker 9 (22:08):
I'm fine, I'm fine, showing I wanted to speak to
a couple of things about the trial, but just quickly
I wanted to say that we, the United States, the
UN should have sent just one word over to Iran
when this man died. And I don't like some people die,
but he was the head of terrorism and responsible for
so many, so much suffering and so many people dying.
(22:28):
We should have sent one word over congratulations.
Speaker 2 (22:32):
The one word would have been, you know, good riddance, goodbye.
I don't care whatever it is. Anyone would be.
Speaker 3 (22:39):
Appropriate, right, And I just want to just it's just.
Speaker 2 (22:42):
Sad that the US sending condolence is when you know,
terrorsts like this died. It's just sad. It's just pathetic.
It just is so lacking in any moral clarity. And
it's just you know, they're they're sucking bootlooking that, you know,
the feet of terrorists. It's just disgusting and nauseating. And
I'm embarrassed as a country that this guy's our president.
(23:04):
I'm just embarrassed. I find it embarrassing and I find
it a dangerous situation on top of everything else, and humiliating. Yeah,
it's humiliating when you lick the boots of dictators. Yeah,
and terrorists. Yeah, it is very believe.
Speaker 9 (23:19):
He wasn't he wasn't. This guy wasn't apologizing when all
these people die to us or to Israel. He wasn't apologizing.
Speaker 2 (23:26):
So no, they orchestrated it, they fomented it, they supported it,
they helped train for it, and they're they're in part
responsible for it, right.
Speaker 9 (23:36):
Right, But anyway, getting onto the trial, First of all,
this judge is so bitter and like you were saying,
bitter and angry because he probably tends his hopes on
being famous for being the one judge you could put
Trump away, you know.
Speaker 2 (23:48):
So well, let me tell you, this judge is dying
to go to all the prestigious New York New York
parties and New York social SOI goal and and all
of that.
Speaker 3 (23:59):
That's what he's looking forward to. That's what he wanted
one judge.
Speaker 9 (24:02):
But anyway, with isn't this election interference what they're doing
keeping him in court all day not one shortest? So
can't he do something to sue them for that?
Speaker 2 (24:14):
No, there's absolutely no recourse for President Trump except that
on appeal, this judge is not going to dismiss this case.
Speaker 3 (24:23):
This isn't going to be a director verdict.
Speaker 2 (24:25):
It's going to be it's going to go to it's
going to go to the jury, and he's going to
give them abusively biased jury instructions. And you just got
to hope and pray that there's at least one person
on that jury that sees through this farce and it
is not going to tolerate it.
Speaker 9 (24:39):
Right, Well, it burns me up as a taxpayer that
we're paying for the all the police protection the police
out there. I'm paying for all this, you know, with
our tact Anyway, I just had a question to ask
about the debate. Who makes up the questions for the debate?
Speaker 2 (24:56):
Uh, well, usually the moderators. I mean no, but he
knew the questions I had for the De Santas and
Gavin Newsom debate, and all I all, I told both sides.
I told them the same thing. I said, no surprises,
no tricks. I said, all the issues you would expect
that the people in your respective states want to talk about.
Speaker 3 (25:17):
And you know, I was.
Speaker 2 (25:18):
Pretty clear, law order, taxes, you know, all that stuff.
And then I stuck to my promise to both of them.
Speaker 9 (25:25):
Okay, so on the people from CNN and they're making
up all the questions for the debate, Is that correct?
Speaker 3 (25:31):
That would be correct?
Speaker 2 (25:32):
Okay, that's why fake Jake, you know, has no business
being on this being a moderator in that debate, right right.
Speaker 9 (25:39):
Well, I think the moderator there should be one from
Fox and one from NN. I mean, that's the fair
thing to do. But anyway, with as far as the
questions go, you know, they're going to get them to
Joe Biden, and they're gonna have all pumped up with
all the answers ahead of time. I mean, when they
only be there if like they had equal questions from
the from the Democrats and equal questions from the republic
(26:00):
inside and not to be given into the last minute.
I mean, that's a fair thing to do, or equal
questions from CNN and equal questions from Fox News and
the last minute otherwise, I mean, he's going to know
all the answers. I had all the questions and answers
ahead of time, and they're gonna you know.
Speaker 2 (26:18):
And these are just unbelievable times that we're in. But
what else would you expect. I mean, you know, CNN
has a history of giving questions to their favorite candidates
ahead of time. Anyway, so you know, I guess we're
just gonna have to wait, watch and see what happens.
All right, let's get back to our phones. Thank you Cheron,
appreciate the call as we say Hi to John and Florida. Also, Hey, John,
(26:43):
how are you, sir?
Speaker 1 (26:45):
Hi Sean, thanks for taking the call.
Speaker 3 (26:48):
On this what's going on?
Speaker 1 (26:49):
Hey? Issues on the third debate, I think that my
suggestion is that President Trump should agree to a debate.
He should proffer a debate on Fox in front of
an audience and invite RFK Jr. And if Biden doesn't
show up, he'll have an empty chair on the stage,
(27:11):
an empty podium on the stage, and both candidates will
of course attack Biden, and I think RFK Junior would
draw votes from Biden, which would be all to the
advantage of President Trump.
Speaker 2 (27:25):
I haven't spent enough time on it, but I will
when the time is right. Over Rfk's record, he doesn't
want to take my calls or do a show.
Speaker 3 (27:33):
I did even did a.
Speaker 2 (27:35):
Town hall with him, and I just gave him time
to talk and introduce himself to the American people. But
RFK is a pretty radical Democrat, and he supports reparations,
and he just came out in favor of race based reparations.
We know that his positions on taxes, the environment. He's
(27:55):
against fracking, oil extraction, keep it in the ground. As
his cam pain, He's voted for every leftist Democrat that
you could ever list or support, And I just think
that he has to show a certain degree of support
before he gets in a debate, and that is pretty
standard procedure. If he shows that he's on in enough
(28:16):
states to get enough electoral votes, and he shows that
he has enough support in the polls, then he'll earn
his way into the debates. But in lesson until we
get to that point, I wouldn't be debating him.
Speaker 3 (28:28):
He has to earn that well.
Speaker 6 (28:29):
I think.
Speaker 1 (28:29):
I think the objective is to have an empty chair,
an empty podium.
Speaker 2 (28:34):
On you can have two empty chairs, so you're gonna
you're gonna have an empty chair for Joe. I absolutely
would do that in a heartbeat, Like like Trump accepted
the debate on Fox and Joe Biden said no, I'd
have a debate setup and if Joe chooses not to show,
I'd have an empty podium.
Speaker 3 (28:51):
That's what I do.
Speaker 2 (28:52):
Not that anybody's gonna listen to me, but that's that
would be my way of handling it.
Speaker 3 (28:57):
Anyway.
Speaker 2 (28:57):
My friend I got a roll eight hundred and ninety
four one shaw a number. All right, the trial's coming
to an end. The battle over jury instructions has been ongoing.
Pam Bondi has been in the courtroom all day to day.
We'll check in with her. We'll get comments from Alan Dershowitz,
Greg Jared. Also, we have Professor Jonathan Turley, Alina Haba,
(29:19):
Senator Ted Cruz, Senator Katie Britt, also Nuke Gingrich, and
Jim Jordan nine Eastern c DVR. Great show tonight, Hannity.
You won't get news on any other channel from the
media mob on the Fox News channel. See then back
here tomorrow. Thank you for making this show possible.
Stay right here for our final news round up and
information Overload.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
All right, News Roundup, Information Overload. Our are toll free
telephone numbers eight hundred and ninety four one sean if
you want to be a part of the program. So
Matt Gates had been in the courtroom with President Trump,
and we had him on and we got his take
on all that's been going on in the courtroom. And
now we see the judge desperately trying to move the
(00:27):
case in Alvin Bragg's direction because it's fallen apart so disastrously.
He took to the floor of the House of Representatives
and talked about the election interference that is going on
in this courtroom.
Speaker 3 (00:41):
And here's what he said.
Speaker 4 (00:42):
I rise to alert this House of election interference that
is going on in a Manhattan courtroom right now. And
we ought to assert our equities to ensure that federal
elections aren't subject to this type of devious behavior. This
entire case in New York is based on Michael Cohen.
Speaker 5 (00:58):
He's one of the few.
Speaker 4 (00:59):
People walking around the planet Earth today who's lied to
all three branches of government. He lied to the investigators,
he lied to his own sentencing judge, he lied to
this very Congress. But as if that wasn't enough, Michael
Cohen lied to this very jury Tuesday. There's a reason
he was held to the end of this case. They
(01:19):
were hoping to corroborate him. They couldn't. It has failed
and it should be dismissed. And otherwise the Congress should
certainly assert our equities to stop election interference.
Speaker 3 (01:28):
Thank you, Matam speak are you'll beck anyway?
Speaker 2 (01:30):
Congressman Matt Gates, he's with the Panhandle out of Florida. Sarah,
welcome back to the program.
Speaker 3 (01:35):
How are you?
Speaker 5 (01:36):
Thanks so much for having me, Sean. And remember this
is a federal election case. But the federal prosecutors at
the Southern District of New York who looked at it,
they said it wasn't worthy of a charge. And then
the Federal Election Commission, who also looked at this, did
not believe that any crime had been committed, that any
prosecution was necessary. So this is a not legal theory
(02:01):
where a local DA is trying to bring this case.
And it really fell apart before our very eyes when
Michael Cohen there was exposed not just being for a
liar of yesteryear in times past, but even this, in
this trial, before this jury, lying about his communications and
(02:22):
the substance to those communications as part of all this
nonsense that they've tried to criminalize because they want to
keep Trump off the campaign trail. So it's quite something.
And you know, I don't know that your listeners can
really appreciate how dank and dreary this place is. You
think about New York being this grandiose place with all
the atmospherics of the Big Apple. The reality is, I
(02:45):
think this courtroom got frozen in time about fifty years
ago and hasn't changed. And it's incredibly close proximity. And
you get to see the smirk on this judge's face.
He believed that this prosecution was his entry ticket in
the high society of New York. Did he would be
celebrated forever as the judge who got to put away
(03:07):
Donald Trump? And he's desperately trying to preserve that despite
all of the evidence cutting against the principal witness for
the prosecution, Michael Cohen, a liar proven over and over again.
Speaker 2 (03:20):
What did you make of the judge's meltdown yesterday as
relates to Costello?
Speaker 3 (03:24):
You trying to stir redrown.
Speaker 2 (03:26):
I mean, I mean, if it wasn't so ridiculous, it's laughable.
And then of course Bradley Smith, former FEC chair who
I interviewed, I played it early in the program and said,
there's no crime committed here at all, and of course
preventing the jury from hearing from him and limiting what
they could hear from Bob Costello that would impeach everything
(03:47):
Cone said. And now here we are, we'll have closing arguments.
I assume that in closing arguments they'll probably try and
limit what the defense has to say there and yet
to give free license to the prosecution. And I mean,
did we really need to hear Stormy Daniels talks to
dead people or the salacious details that are immaterial, irrelevant
(04:07):
to the case that he allowed to drone on and
on and on, did we really you know, even as
it has nothing to do with the case, But David
Pecker talking about catch and kill operations that he does
for so many people, again irrelevant, immaterial to the case,
and the allegation and even the charges his novel illegal
(04:28):
theory as this is, and it just really it does
begin to make one wonder, you know what jury instructions
are going to look like and and now I think
the judge in this case is purposely trying to tip
the scale back in favor of the prosecution because they
got destroyed, and he knows damn well they got destroyed.
Maybe a lot of things can't be that dumb.
Speaker 5 (04:49):
It's an incredibly rare and powerful thing when someone's own
lawyer stands up and says that that person has been
a liar. That was what was occurring with my for
Cohen's former lawyer, Bob Costello, And it seemed that really
triggered the judge. That that got the judge so enraged
that he cleared the courtroom and had this kind of bizarre.
Speaker 3 (05:12):
Magical the way.
Speaker 2 (05:13):
The only other person that I know gets people that
pissed off.
Speaker 3 (05:16):
As you how Trump, I guess.
Speaker 5 (05:20):
I mean, I've never gotten a.
Speaker 2 (05:21):
Judge that me And by not talking about I'm not
talking about a judge, I'm just speaking generally.
Speaker 3 (05:26):
I'm all right, I'm joking around.
Speaker 6 (05:27):
Go ahead, yeah, no.
Speaker 5 (05:29):
While witnesses before Congress procure I'll plead guilty to getting
a few of them hot under the collar. But but
here for a judge to be so intemperate is indicative
if someone displeased with the direction of this trial and
how it seems to be going on the presentation of
the evidence, and so I think you're right to be
(05:50):
concerned about what these jury instructions look like. I would
expect that a good amount of the summation from pot
Blanche will revisit all of the points he scored during
the cross examination of Michael Cohen. They the thievery stealing
from the Trump organization. This wasn't someone who was just
(06:12):
lying to protect Donald Trump. This was someone at all
material times was working for his own benefit, for his
own financial benefit, to try to move into a societal
governmental class that he thought he deserved to be in.
And it may have just been an inter meddler in
this whole bizarre matter.
Speaker 2 (06:32):
While I thought we were definitely headed at a minimum
to a hung jury, maybe an outright acquittal, I think
the judge now is trying to tip the scales here
in favor of the prosecution, and he's doing everything he
can possibly do. You know, and I'm listening to people
on TV. I really think they're stupid and dumb and
(06:53):
don't know what the hell they're talking about. I know,
the Trump team rightly has put forward a motion to dismiss.
Speaker 3 (06:59):
That's not going to happen.
Speaker 2 (07:00):
I know everybody's talked about, well, the right thing to
do would be a directive verdict. We know that's not
going to happen. We know that this judge, the Biden
downer judge with conflicts who should have accused himself. We
know he's gone all in now with the prosecution and
he's now going to double triple, quadruple down on it.
Speaker 3 (07:19):
And the media mob they're doing the same.
Speaker 2 (07:21):
Let me play a quick cut of you know, Lawrence O'Donnell,
Lawrence lost his mind. He's actually trying to downplay Michael
Cohen and the fact the revelation yesterday that he's stealing,
you know, tens of thousands of dollars from the Trump organization.
Speaker 7 (07:37):
He very effectively got Michael Cohen to say to agree
that yes, he stole thirty thousand dollars. Later, when Cohen
was asked about that on redirect by the prosecution, it
didn't really sound like stealing thirty thousand dollars. It sounded
a lot like Michael Cohen doing the little that he
could within that calculation to rebalance the bonus He thought
(08:00):
he deserved, and it still came out as less than
the bonus he thought he deserved and the bonus he'd
gotten here.
Speaker 2 (08:06):
Before trying to con admitted he stole from the organization.
What part of it does somebody at ms DNC not understand.
Speaker 5 (08:18):
Laurence O'Donnell has acknowledged how devastating the cross examination was
of Michael Cohen, and now he's trying to suggest that
there was some rehabilitation. But it's not just the volume
of lies that will, I think, encompass the testimony of
Michael Cohen. It's also the nature of those lies. The
key distinction that Todd Blanche brilliantly brought out is that
(08:42):
Michael Cohen was not just lying because the job required it,
or because Donald Trump wanted him to, or it was
for Trump's benefit. Cohen was someone who was just a
gratuitous liar for his own benefit. And when he admitted
that it was stealing on cross examination, it showed that
(09:03):
the prosecution didn't really lay a sufficient foundation. You know,
in court, you always want to get the bad information
out yourself. You don't want the other side drawing it
out of your witnesses. And in this case, the worst
of Michael Cohen was undeniably drawn out by Todd's lanch
and I think it left a jury wondering when or
not this whole thing was done for retribution, because actually
(09:25):
Michael Cohen wasn't the inner circle guy that he thought
he was once Donald Trump was transitioning out of private
life and into the presidency. And this is a circumstance
of a sad man who's dinner and trying to take
it out through a criminal prosecution that again, the FEC
didn't believe was proper. The Southern District of New York
(09:45):
didn't think it was proper. The only guy who thought
this was proper was the DA who had literally campaigned
on getting Trump, had said he had gone after him
more than a hundred times. And it was a campaign
promise to bring this goofy prosecution that should not be
how criminal law is utilized in our country.
Speaker 2 (10:03):
You spend time in the at the trial, in the courtroom,
time to really really take a good hard look at
the jury. But you know a lot has happened since
the last time we spoke. How do you think all
of this and clear the courtroom and the drama yesterday?
How is this playing out in the minds of jurors.
Speaker 5 (10:23):
In your view, well, it's quite a commotion. When the
jury has to get up and leave and come back
into the room. They literally have to walk within about
two feet of Donald Trump, between Trump and the judge
in and out, and you know, to get the alternates
as well as the principal jurors from their specific seat
and specific row in and out. It showcases, you know,
(10:46):
the I think frustration on the part of the judge
that he really wanted to unload on the witness and
in some ways that only makes the jury think more
about that particular witnesses testimony. I was there for hours
upon hours of testimony with Michael Cohen and the jury,
and it was obvious to everyone in that room whether
(11:07):
they liked Trump or didn't, whether they you know, were
in the media or they're supporting a particular cause. Those
folks knew that Michael Cohen was lying when he got
caught in the lie about why he was communicating with
Keith Schiller, Donald Trump's body man.
Speaker 2 (11:27):
I mean, by the way, this is the one minute
and thirty six second call and the text messages that
actually were timestamped at the time of the call leading
up to that call about him being, you know, upset
over a fourteen year old that he described as a
stalker making phone calls to him and asking Keith Schiller
(11:48):
for help.
Speaker 5 (11:50):
Right, So, so, Michael con initially said that the only
purpose of this call was to talk about the Stormy
Daniels deal, and then text messages were unearth showing that
there was indeed a different purpose of that call. So
now Michael Con is saying, well, there were in fact
two purposes of the call, when he previously said there
was only one, and the text message suggests something else. Altogether,
(12:14):
there was one juror who seemed almost bucked out laughing
as Michael Cohen's lives were being exposed. It was almost
hard to hold back laughter because you saw this guy
get confronted with his own text messages complaining about a
fourteen year old of messages to him about the Trump
(12:35):
transition into office, and him wanting the Secret Service, Michael
Cohen wanted to know less than the Secret Service to
hunt down this fourteen year old and give him the up.
Speaker 2 (12:43):
For under any circumstances, in spite of all the prejudice
of the judge in this case, and all of the
fundamental unfairness that we've been discussing. Do you see any
scenario under which there's a guilty verdict here? Because I
would argue, even at this late hour before they head
(13:04):
into next Tuesday and closing arguments, I don't think if
I surveyed that jury, that anybody would be able to
tell me what exactly it is that Donald Trump is
being charge with.
Speaker 5 (13:16):
Yeah, I mean you are left wondering, as the viewer,
what's the crime here? Again, because you know, familiar transactions,
familiar activities, just like the David Pecker testimony was.
Speaker 6 (13:29):
If it's a.
Speaker 5 (13:29):
Crime for candidates and campaigns to try to shape the
media coverage of what they're doing and what their opponents
are doing, then they're going to need a lot more
jails for literally everyone else in American politics today. So
I think that the guilty verdict is certainly the least
likely outcome here. I can't imagine on these sacs and
(13:53):
with this twisting of the law, any reasonable person that
could conclude that President Trump had committed a crime. But remember,
they've got to get all twelve, and I think that
that is exceedingly well. I think that they're you know,
I got the sense looking into the eyes and at
least some of these jurors that there was a real
appreciation for how bizarre, strange, unfair and unjust this prosecution was.
(14:17):
And really all twelve of them should conclude that if
they're looking at the evidence and not bridled by any
preconceived notions about Donald Trump for his presidency or as policies.
Speaker 2 (14:31):
Well, we really appreciate you being with US. Congressman Matt Gates, Florida.
Thank you, eight hundred and ninety four one, Shawn on
number if you want to be a part of the program,
all right before we hit the phones here. Well, it
hasn't been a good couple of days for Joey. This
from just earlier today where Joe Biden talks about signing
up Pack and Pack and Lack Act into law.
Speaker 6 (14:55):
Let me close you this after I shigned the Pack
and Pack At Act into law.
Speaker 2 (15:03):
After I signed the Pack and Pack Adam Lack Act
into law.
Speaker 3 (15:09):
Linda, you know what that means? Can you interpret that
from me?
Speaker 8 (15:13):
I think what he was really saying is I love alpaca,
I love al paka sweaters. I'm signing a sweater law
in that all people must wear alpaca sweaters. That's what
I got from that one, just saying.
Speaker 3 (15:24):
No, unbelievable.
Speaker 2 (15:26):
Now, it's not been a very good day for a
week for clueless Joe. And by the way, it's only Tuesday,
not exactly a hard week.
Speaker 3 (15:35):
Now.
Speaker 2 (15:36):
Yesterday they had to make nine brutal corrections to his
speech to the NAACP. Nine, I mean, Biden's first mistake
at the very beginning of the speech tells the story
about Obama dispatching him to Detroit during the pandemic.
Speaker 3 (15:54):
They had to fix that mess.
Speaker 2 (15:56):
Then, moments later, Biding telling the NAACP, He's humbled to
receive this organization. In the White House transcript that crossed
that organization corrected it with award. We're cracking down on
corporate landlords who keep rents down was changed to we're
cracking down on corporate landlords to keep rents down, while
(16:18):
another unfortunate sentence describing those who took part in the
Capitol riots as erectionists corrected to insurrectionists. You know what
an erectionist is, Linda.
Speaker 8 (16:28):
I think we should ask who is it?
Speaker 3 (16:30):
Giapaul?
Speaker 6 (16:31):
Right?
Speaker 8 (16:31):
Wasn't it Giopaul who said that in front of a
full House of Congress when she was referring to Trump.
They got a lot of directionists over there.
Speaker 2 (16:38):
A lot of erectionists. Then Biden, incorrectly quoting former President Trump,
is saying that there would be bloodshed if he loses
in November. That was corrected to blood bath. As was
a moment where Biden mistakenly claimed to have saved millions
of families eight hundred thousand dollars per year in premiums.
While Biden corrected his eight hundred thousand dollars mistake during
(17:00):
the speech, he replaced it with eight thousand dollars a
year in premiums, which is also incorrect. Never mind the
millions and billions that you and I talked about yesterday.
Then he tells the White House gathering that an American
hostage is still being held by hamas is here with
us today. Wow, Like he talks to dead people, talks
(17:21):
to hostages. Now he imagines that they're in the crowd.
Obama orders him to go to Detroit during the pandemic
and help fix it. Wow, I mean, how do you
have so many mistakes in one speech? It does make
a well pretty compelling case for those that have been
saying and predicting he's not going to be on the ticket.
Speaker 3 (17:41):
I'll tell you that.
Speaker 9 (17:42):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (17:42):
Let us say hi to Tim and Tennessee. Tim, how
are you glad you called Sarah?
Speaker 6 (17:48):
Thanks so much, Sean. I'm a child attorneyments for thirty years,
and I just want to magnify what Professor Dershowitsch and
Turley and and Trake out You're saying. It's just extrait
the favoritism that's being shown by this judge and the
fact he hasn't tossed out that trial when there's no
elements of a crime. They're trying to boot a misdemeanor
(18:12):
up to a felony on a federal statute that state
courts have no jurisdiction to bring. Just incredible. And if
I were a low information New York voter, I would
be ashamed because it would be to me like the
Edmund Tennis Bridge vote.
Speaker 2 (18:27):
But Counselor, that's a problem a low information New York voter,
he just answered your question. They have no clue, and
now the judge is trying to prevent them from even
knowing the law by preventing the FEC former head from
explaining what the law actually says. He's basically trying to
(18:50):
help the prosecution recover from the disastrous trial that has
been and jury instructions are only going to be worse.
Speaker 6 (18:59):
Well, those already been in weeks ago before the Dreams
got there. They should have had those submit and the
last little thing before pre prow, before they ever started
the trial, should have been.
Speaker 2 (19:12):
How do you like the fact that Bragg, according to
a Costello, was given all of this exculpatory information that
was withheld from the grand jury?
Speaker 3 (19:21):
How do you like that little development?
Speaker 6 (19:23):
Well, that's that's clearly what we call plane air as
Brady material that should have been given and with exculpatory
Where is this their their their claim of a of
a crime being committed?
Speaker 2 (19:36):
There's so many you get you got an A plus
because that's exactly what Mark Levin's been saying.
Speaker 3 (19:41):
That's it. I'm done.
Speaker 2 (19:42):
He's been right all along anyway, Tim, I got a
roll man. Uh uh no, I've never seen anything like
this ever ever. Rhode Island, Lou Next Sean Hennity Show,
What's up, Lou Where in Rhode Island do you live?
Speaker 10 (19:55):
Well? I lived not of Providence. They live in Lincolnwrhode Island.
And it's when of places. I know because I was
on your show or the hand of the show, I
got one of your football's, your phenomenal, phenomenal host. You
greeted us all online. But anyway, I don't know, I
don't know where he stam of the Fumbshowan, you really
are an amazing.
Speaker 3 (20:16):
Person, very kind. Thank you.
Speaker 10 (20:19):
I think the gentleman. Before I talked about the exculpatory emails,
but in my situation, I have the cases, was one
hundred missing exhibits. You had the jury pool, who I
believe was pre selected, and I think what Trump is
going to watch out for, what you already know is
eighty five percent of those people are compromise and the
judges he's a lunatic. I think what he's gonna watch
(20:42):
out for is he has to get every one of
those people that were selected for the jury, because every
one of them can be compromised. In my case, I
believe the jury was actually selected, the whole pool was
actually selected before my case started, and I won't get
into that, but I think I think that's one of
the things Trump has to really look out for because,
(21:04):
as you know, these people have done a lot of planning.
They planned before the case started with the Green jury
eliminating all that exculpatory evidence and not letting it come
under their purview. And I really believe that there's a
strong possibility that the whole jury pool was pre selected
in some way. I believe they probably are shirpt and
(21:29):
circumvented the process that normally takes place in New York
and picking jury pools. So I just wanted to put
him Donold.
Speaker 2 (21:37):
Well, they're supposed to have a you know, they're not
supposed to choose a judge either, and they bypassed the
process of having a random selection and they picked a
perfect anti Trump judge. I mean, it's pretty unbelievable. But
you know, well, welcome to the state of New York,
where things are more corrupt than ever. I can tell
you that. Anyway, my friend, I appreciate it. Eight hundred
(22:00):
and ninety four one Shaw in his hard number. If
you want to be a part of the program, Sharon,
Sharon in my free state of Florida.
Speaker 3 (22:06):
Hey, Sharon, how are you fine?
Speaker 9 (22:08):
I'm fine, I'm fine, showing I wanted to speak to
a couple of things about the trial, but just quickly
I wanted to say that we, the United States, the
UN should have sent just one word over to Iran
when this man died. And I don't like some people die,
but he was the head of terrorism and responsible for
so many, so much suffering and so many people dying.
(22:28):
We should have sent one word over congratulations.
Speaker 2 (22:32):
The one word would have been, you know, good riddance, goodbye.
I don't care whatever it is. Anyone would be.
Speaker 3 (22:39):
Appropriate, right, And I just want to just it's just.
Speaker 2 (22:42):
Sad that the US sending condolence is when you know,
terrorsts like this died. It's just sad. It's just pathetic.
It just is so lacking in any moral clarity. And
it's just you know, they're they're sucking bootlooking that, you know,
the feet of terrorists. It's just disgusting and nauseating. And
I'm embarrassed as a country that this guy's our president.
(23:04):
I'm just embarrassed. I find it embarrassing and I find
it a dangerous situation on top of everything else, and humiliating. Yeah,
it's humiliating when you lick the boots of dictators. Yeah,
and terrorists. Yeah, it is very believe.
Speaker 9 (23:19):
He wasn't he wasn't. This guy wasn't apologizing when all
these people die to us or to Israel. He wasn't apologizing.
Speaker 2 (23:26):
So no, they orchestrated it, they fomented it, they supported it,
they helped train for it, and they're they're in part
responsible for it, right.
Speaker 9 (23:36):
Right, But anyway, getting onto the trial, First of all,
this judge is so bitter and like you were saying,
bitter and angry because he probably tends his hopes on
being famous for being the one judge you could put
Trump away, you know.
Speaker 2 (23:48):
So well, let me tell you, this judge is dying
to go to all the prestigious New York New York
parties and New York social SOI goal and and all
of that.
Speaker 3 (23:59):
That's what he's looking forward to. That's what he wanted
one judge.
Speaker 9 (24:02):
But anyway, with isn't this election interference what they're doing
keeping him in court all day not one shortest? So
can't he do something to sue them for that?
Speaker 2 (24:14):
No, there's absolutely no recourse for President Trump except that
on appeal, this judge is not going to dismiss this case.
Speaker 3 (24:23):
This isn't going to be a director verdict.
Speaker 2 (24:25):
It's going to be it's going to go to it's
going to go to the jury, and he's going to
give them abusively biased jury instructions. And you just got
to hope and pray that there's at least one person
on that jury that sees through this farce and it
is not going to tolerate it.
Speaker 9 (24:39):
Right, Well, it burns me up as a taxpayer that
we're paying for the all the police protection the police
out there. I'm paying for all this, you know, with
our tact Anyway, I just had a question to ask
about the debate. Who makes up the questions for the debate?
Speaker 2 (24:56):
Uh, well, usually the moderators. I mean no, but he
knew the questions I had for the De Santas and
Gavin Newsom debate, and all I all, I told both sides.
I told them the same thing. I said, no surprises,
no tricks. I said, all the issues you would expect
that the people in your respective states want to talk about.
Speaker 3 (25:17):
And you know, I was.
Speaker 2 (25:18):
Pretty clear, law order, taxes, you know, all that stuff.
And then I stuck to my promise to both of them.
Speaker 9 (25:25):
Okay, so on the people from CNN and they're making
up all the questions for the debate, Is that correct?
Speaker 3 (25:31):
That would be correct?
Speaker 2 (25:32):
Okay, that's why fake Jake, you know, has no business
being on this being a moderator in that debate, right right.
Speaker 9 (25:39):
Well, I think the moderator there should be one from
Fox and one from NN. I mean, that's the fair
thing to do. But anyway, with as far as the
questions go, you know, they're going to get them to
Joe Biden, and they're gonna have all pumped up with
all the answers ahead of time. I mean, when they
only be there if like they had equal questions from
the from the Democrats and equal questions from the republic
(26:00):
inside and not to be given into the last minute.
I mean, that's a fair thing to do, or equal
questions from CNN and equal questions from Fox News and
the last minute otherwise, I mean, he's going to know
all the answers. I had all the questions and answers
ahead of time, and they're gonna you know.
Speaker 2 (26:18):
And these are just unbelievable times that we're in. But
what else would you expect. I mean, you know, CNN
has a history of giving questions to their favorite candidates
ahead of time. Anyway, so you know, I guess we're
just gonna have to wait, watch and see what happens.
All right, let's get back to our phones. Thank you Cheron,
appreciate the call as we say Hi to John and Florida. Also, Hey, John,
(26:43):
how are you, sir?
Speaker 1 (26:45):
Hi Sean, thanks for taking the call.
Speaker 3 (26:48):
On this what's going on?
Speaker 1 (26:49):
Hey? Issues on the third debate, I think that my
suggestion is that President Trump should agree to a debate.
He should proffer a debate on Fox in front of
an audience and invite RFK Jr. And if Biden doesn't
show up, he'll have an empty chair on the stage,
(27:11):
an empty podium on the stage, and both candidates will
of course attack Biden, and I think RFK Junior would
draw votes from Biden, which would be all to the
advantage of President Trump.
Speaker 2 (27:25):
I haven't spent enough time on it, but I will
when the time is right. Over Rfk's record, he doesn't
want to take my calls or do a show.
Speaker 3 (27:33):
I did even did a.
Speaker 2 (27:35):
Town hall with him, and I just gave him time
to talk and introduce himself to the American people. But
RFK is a pretty radical Democrat, and he supports reparations,
and he just came out in favor of race based reparations.
We know that his positions on taxes, the environment. He's
(27:55):
against fracking, oil extraction, keep it in the ground. As
his cam pain, He's voted for every leftist Democrat that
you could ever list or support, And I just think
that he has to show a certain degree of support
before he gets in a debate, and that is pretty
standard procedure. If he shows that he's on in enough
(28:16):
states to get enough electoral votes, and he shows that
he has enough support in the polls, then he'll earn
his way into the debates. But in lesson until we
get to that point, I wouldn't be debating him.
Speaker 3 (28:28):
He has to earn that well.
Speaker 6 (28:29):
I think.
Speaker 1 (28:29):
I think the objective is to have an empty chair,
an empty podium.
Speaker 2 (28:34):
On you can have two empty chairs, so you're gonna
you're gonna have an empty chair for Joe. I absolutely
would do that in a heartbeat, Like like Trump accepted
the debate on Fox and Joe Biden said no, I'd
have a debate setup and if Joe chooses not to show,
I'd have an empty podium.
Speaker 3 (28:51):
That's what I do.
Speaker 2 (28:52):
Not that anybody's gonna listen to me, but that's that
would be my way of handling it.
Speaker 3 (28:57):
Anyway.
Speaker 2 (28:57):
My friend I got a roll eight hundred and ninety
four one shaw a number. All right, the trial's coming
to an end. The battle over jury instructions has been ongoing.
Pam Bondi has been in the courtroom all day to day.
We'll check in with her. We'll get comments from Alan Dershowitz,
Greg Jared. Also, we have Professor Jonathan Turley, Alina Haba,
(29:19):
Senator Ted Cruz, Senator Katie Britt, also Nuke Gingrich, and
Jim Jordan nine Eastern c DVR. Great show tonight, Hannity.
You won't get news on any other channel from the
media mob on the Fox News channel. See then back
here tomorrow. Thank you for making this show possible.
The Sean Hannity Show News
Host
Sean Hannity
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
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.