November 24, 2025 • 28 mins
In today's urgent analysis, Fox News legal mind Gregg Jarrett breaks down the latest legal maneuvering and what he calls the weaponization of the justice system against the former President.
Lawfare and the 'Deep State'
Jarrett dissects the most recent developments in the ongoing legal battles. Is the system being used for political ends? He argues that key players in Washington and the Department of Justice continue their coordinated "lawfare" campaign, attempting to interfere with the election and undermine the will of the people. We'll examine new evidence that, according to Jarrett, proves the entire narrative against Trump and his allies was a "hoax" manufactured by "deep state" collaborators.
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):
Hour or two Sean Hannity Show, eight hundred and ninety
(00:02):
four one. Shawn is on number if you want to
be a part of the program. A federal judge Clinton appointee,
Cameron Mcowan Curry dismissing the charges against former FBI Director
James Comy and New York Attorney General Letitia James on Monday.
The judge dismissing the case brought in the Northern Virginia
(00:25):
area by Lindsay Halligan on the basis that Halligan is
quote not lawfully serving as serving as the interim US
attorney for the Eastern District of New Jersey. Let me
go specifically to some of the cuts. And you know,
one of the problems with all of the issues involving
James Comy is the statute limitations have run out. And
(00:47):
as I've been telling you, this is the low hanging fruit.
And this is because the testimony he gave back in
twenty twenty, so the statute limitations had not run out
at the time. And he's testifying to Ted Cruz that
he denied he approved the leak of classified information, of
which I believe I've been convinced it seems to be
a more than prima facia case against him. Here's what
(01:10):
he said to Ted Kruz.
Speaker 2 (01:12):
He then asked you, quote, have you ever authorized someone
else of the FBI to be an anonymous source in
news reports about the Trump investigation or the Clinton administration?
You responded again under oath No. Now, as you know,
mister McCabe, who works for you, has publicly and repeatedly
stated that he leaked information to the Wall Street Journal
(01:33):
and that you were a directly aware of it and
that you directly authorized it. Now, what mister McCabe is
saying and what you testified to this committee cannot both
be true. One or the other is false. Who's telling
the truth.
Speaker 1 (01:48):
I can only speak to my testimony.
Speaker 3 (01:50):
I stand by what the testimony you summarized that I
gave in May of twenty seventeen.
Speaker 2 (01:54):
So your testimony is you've never authorized anyone to leak.
And mister mccab when if he says contra tray is
not telling the truth?
Speaker 4 (02:01):
Is that correct?
Speaker 3 (02:02):
Again, I'm not going to characterize Andy's testimony, but mine
is the same. Today, now we.
Speaker 1 (02:07):
Do have an update as this Clinton appointed judge in
this particular case, Judge Cameron Curry dismissed the false charges
charge against Comy and bank fraud charges against James without prejudice,
meaning the charges could be brought again. Curry, nominated by
Bill Clinton to a seat on the US District Court,
(02:28):
was confirmed by the US Senate in nineteen ninety four.
Here's a clip of that's pretty viral at this point.
Twenty twenty, again testifying to Lindsey Graham, he did not
recall receiving intel on Hillary Clinton's camp pushing Russian disinformation.
Speaker 5 (02:45):
So do you recall getting an inquiry from the CIA,
excuse me, the in diligence community in September twenty sixteen
about a concern that the Clinton campaign was going to
create a scandal regain guarding Trump in Russia. I do not.
You don't remember getting an investigatory lead from the intelligence community.
(03:12):
September the seventh, twenty sixteen, the US intelligence officials forded
an investigative referral of to FBI Director James Gummy and
Direct Assistant Director of Counter Intelligence Peter Struck regarding US
presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's approval of a plan concerning US
presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering US elections
(03:37):
as a means of distracting the public from her use
of a private email server. You don't remember getting that
or being taught that doesn't Okay, that's a pretty stunny thing.
It didn't ring a bell, but it did come to you.
Speaker 1 (03:52):
Now, if you go back to the burned bags that
were found in the at the FBI, these are bags
that were supposed to be incinerated. But if you go back,
there was pretty self incriminating notes and written notes of
James Comy. I'm sure he thought they were long gone.
In many ways, I think pretty damning that he knew
(04:13):
almost you know, from the get go that it was
this whole Clinton narrative, you know, was was garbage. Anyway,
here to weigh in on this and what are the
next steps in a likely appeal in this case. David Shown,
former counsel for President Trump. Greg Jarrett, Fox News legal analyst,
New York Times bestselling author, Greg, Start with you. You wrote
(04:33):
a column about all of this, and it seemed that
those the information in the burn bags contradict what he
testified to.
Speaker 6 (04:41):
Oh, it absolutely does. And you know, the more that
the FBI discovers evidence that was hidden away, the more
incriminating it is for James Comy. But you know today's
decision by the Virginia judge. I think it's the wrong decision.
It will will likely be appealed to a higher court.
(05:02):
But in the meantime, since Judge Curry dismissed the case,
as you point out, Shawn, without prejudice, that means the
statute of limitations, which has now expired, is told or
extended for six more months, so that both Comey and
James can be re indicted with the exact same charges,
(05:26):
but with a different US attorney signing onto it. In fact,
given the additional evidence discovered against Cumy, I think additional
charges could be added. Look, this was entirely foreseeable that
this Clinton appointed judge would rule against the Trump administration.
I think Judge Curry is misinterpreting the law and the
(05:47):
constitution and ruling that Lindsay Halligan was invalidly appointed. The
president has the sole power of appointment whenever there's a vacancy,
and that's what happened. Eric Sebert, who was interim appointed, expired.
He was kept on by as US Attorney by a
vote of the judges in the district, which the law provides,
(06:09):
but he later departed that left of vacancy, which President
Trump filled with Halligan. There is nothing in the law
that forbids a president from making multiple appointments. But you know,
this Democrat judge was looking for an excuse to toss
the case and conjured one up. But it's a pyrrhic
victory because they'll be reindicted.
Speaker 1 (06:31):
What are your thoughts, David chum I.
Speaker 7 (06:32):
Agree one hundred percent they will be re indicted. The
statute Greg talks about in the eighteen USC thirty two
to eighty eight allows them six months now to reindict,
so the statute limitations doesn't become an issue, and if
they appeal it, then sixty days from when the decision
will become final. Aft the Court of Appeals to the
Supreme Court has weighed in. But you know, there are
many arguments that he made here, some very distinguished professor's professors.
(06:54):
Stephen Calabresi has said this section of this statute that
allows federal judge's authority in here to appoint the US
attorney is unconstitutional. Another judge, Paul Castell. Former Judge Paul
Castell said even if it's constitutional, that it still is
not lawful for this. Uh, this statue not lawful. So
there are a number of arguments to be made still,
(07:16):
but I think they will be reindicted. I have to
tell you. I mean, Lindsay Halligan showed great courage in
stepping up here on short notice, uh, filling the shoes.
Remember in this office, Coney had a relative working in
the office when Siebert was the US attorney. That relative left.
So Lindsay Halligan, you know, came into a situation that
was hostile from the start. I have to be, you know,
(07:38):
to be perfectly candid from everything in all the media
reports that we've seen, the Justice Department should have given
her much more support. She she did what she was
asked to do, and she did it because she believed
in it, and because the facts were there and the
evidence is there supported. I have no question that there'll
be reindictments in both cases. You might say me than
(07:58):
you might say, why not address the things on the merits?
If you're a public figure like Letitia James Racomi, wouldn't
you want this aired on the merits? If you think
you're right now?
Speaker 1 (08:07):
I would think so. Yeah. But I mean, as I
pointed out many times on this program that this is
the low hanging fruit. Moving on to a separate issue,
separate and apart, is we have this issue of you know,
six lawmakers, senators and congressman, this tape that they put
out at demanding that, in fact, that the military and
(08:31):
the CIA have a duty and an obligation to disobey
the orders of the commander in chief. When confronted on
this issue this weekend, Elie Slockin, Senator Michigan, said she's
not aware of President Trump making any illegal orders. She
made this comment on ABC. Here's what she said.
Speaker 3 (08:51):
So let's talk right now.
Speaker 8 (08:52):
Do you believe President Trump has issued any illegal orders?
Speaker 9 (08:57):
To my knowledge, I am not aware of things that
are illegal, but certainly there are some legal gymnastics that
are going on with these Caribbean strikes and everything related
to Venezuela.
Speaker 1 (09:07):
Okay, now the president has you believes that this is
seditious behavior. It's been making the rounds all over the place.
Eighteen USC. Twenty three, eighty seven. We have talked about
it on this program, and the idea that it's optional
to obey the president's orders. She's admitting that she doesn't
(09:27):
have a specific example. I don't know what the proper
analysis of this is in terms of a legal effect.
But here, if you look at the statute, it activities
affecting the Armed Forces general. It makes it a federal
crime to do any of the following with the intent
to interfere with US military operations, advise urge or attempt
(09:49):
to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty among
members of the US military, or obstruct or attempt to
obstruct recruiting, enlistment, general milleritary operations, or three distribute materials
advocating any of the above. The law does not require
advocating the overthrow of the government. It's specifically about undermining
(10:10):
the functioning of the US military. Do you think that
that particular code greg Jarrett, eighteen USC. Twenty three eighty
seven is applicable to the senators In Congressman.
Speaker 6 (10:22):
Percent, it is well established that orders by the President
are presumed to be lawful and must be obeyed at
all times by service members. Now one can reasonably debate
whether calling on those service members to disobey unlawful orders
actually rises to the level of sedition, which is a
(10:45):
very high threshold. But Sean, you're correct it does violate
a very specific different law passed by Congress, which makes
it a crime to undermine the loyalty in the morale
or the discipline of US forces by encouraging or urging
or advising them to disobey orders. Eighteen Usc. Twenty three
(11:09):
eighty seven. What's so dishonest and diabolical about what these
six members of Congress did is that their statements insinuated
that Trump had issued unlawful orders, when in fact there's
no evidence that he has done that. And when questioned,
you played the clip, none of them has cited a
(11:30):
single illegal order. So you know, it's like the old
prosecutor who asks an innocent man, how often do you
beat your wife? The question contains a false statement, so
it sounds incriminating. That's what they did to Trump here
in their videotape statements. They tried to pretend that he's
(11:51):
done something unlawful when in fact he hasn't.
Speaker 7 (11:55):
Your take, David Shan, Yeah, I mean, I hate to
be just a yes man on the show, but you
and Greg are both correct. Eighteen Usc. Twenty three eighty seven.
Applicable penalty is up to ten years. I think there's
another statute that could apply. Eighteen USC. Thirteen eighty one
makes it a crime to entice to procure someone to dessert.
That's the logical conclusion here would be desertion the service
(12:16):
member him or herself. First of all, you have an
absolute duty not to obey a manifestly unlawful order. And
it's no defense to say I'm just obeying orders. That's
not what we have here. And so for a service
member to disobey disorder all kinds of punishments. There's non
judicial punishments under Article fifteen, administrative penalties so on, or
there's a court martial confinement up to two years if
(12:37):
it's a general order up to five years, if you
willfully disbey a commissioned officer discharge maybe and in times
of war, frankly, it's death penalty, which I think is
what President Trump was referring to. The penalty is out
there under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. If you
disobey a superior off willfully disobey a superior off commissioned
officers order in time of war, you do are subject
(12:59):
to the death penalty.
Speaker 1 (13:00):
Well, that's going to be interesting to watch. By the way,
Letitia James It's simple. Either she claimed on papers that
it was her primary residence or she didn't. It's really
that simple. Anyway. We continue now with David Shoon and
Greg Jareder with us last question for you only, David,
and I only have about thirty seconds for you to answer.
You were Jeffrey Epstein's attorney in the final days of
(13:22):
his life. You specifically asked him, and you've said it
on this program before, whether he had anything any incriminating
information on Donald Trump. He told you what he told me.
Speaker 7 (13:32):
He absolutely did not. And what I've said many times
is you can try to interpret all of these emails
and so on, and the mention of names and putting
innocent people into it because their name is mentioned without
any question. Jeffrey Epstein had an absolute interest, if it
were true, in bringing forth any dirt he had on
Donald Trump, to try to gain leverage in his face.
The fact that at that point.
Speaker 1 (13:52):
Is, but he also hated Donald Trump because Donald Trump
humiliated him by throwing him out of his club publicly
and spectac acculately and loudly. Would he do that if,
in fact he knew he had incriminating information on him?
Speaker 7 (14:05):
If he had incriminated information. He certainly would have tried
to hurt him if he could, but he didn't have
that information. And you know, I know people have painted
a monst and so on. He was not in the
business of just making up something about somebody else, and
he wasn't going to do that to President Trump. And
that's what it would have been required. So that to
me speaks louder than anything. He had the incentive then
to use it if he had it, and he didn't.
Speaker 1 (14:27):
All right, we appreciate both of you, Greg Jarrett and
David Chan Thank you both. Eight hundred nine four one.
Shawn is on number. If you want to be a
part of the program, we'll get to your calls coming
up here. Eight hundred nine to four one, Shawn.
Speaker 4 (14:38):
All right.
Speaker 1 (14:39):
Let us well before I get there, you know MS
DNC never going to change. They're like apparently going through
some name change. We're not going to change our name,
MS DNC, MS Socialist DNC, I don't know whatever you
want to call it. So listen to one guest says
that the Trump administration is going to bring back hate speech.
I want you to pay close er to mention to this.
Speaker 9 (15:01):
But my point is that there's been a broader effort
here obviously to sort of like bring back or destigmatize
I guess, hate speech and restigmatize or or stigmatize anew
you know, American heroes and rainbows and other you know DEI.
There's been a lot going on within this Department of
(15:23):
Defense and DHS in this particular case, to try to
basically get rid of, get rid of diversity, get rid
of like any sort of recognition that there should be something,
you know, that we should celebrate our difference.
Speaker 1 (15:37):
Yea and crum is trying to bring back hate speech.
Let's stay on the same network. And a commentator uh
celebrating ANTII protesters that were slashing tires, casing agents out
of buildings. Is this hate speech? Listen.
Speaker 8 (15:58):
My MVP of the week is all of the students
who walked out in Charlotte this week in protest of ICE.
Speaker 1 (16:03):
Rates remind us because we didn't talk about it.
Speaker 8 (16:05):
So Charlotte's web is basically ICE Department of Homeland Securities
plan to arrest thousands of supposedly undocumented people in Charlotte.
It has terrorized the city. It is shut down traffic.
You have schools where thirty forty percent of the kids
are not showing up. And these young people on their own,
without politicians, without mom, without mom and dad, said we're
standing against this. We want our country to be better.
And thousands of them walk out of their schools in
(16:27):
protests to say we don't want ICE here. In addition
to the fact, and I won't say that I'm suggesting
this behavior, but ICE agents have found that their tires
are slashed. They have been found that they have been
chased out of it. Yes, they have been chased out
of buildings, chased out.
Speaker 1 (16:40):
Of WRESTLERUS behavior.
Speaker 8 (16:41):
It is dangerous behavior, but it is a demonstration that
the American public, when they're not being listened to, these
are the options that will take I hope this administration
listens and pulls back these ICE rates.
Speaker 1 (16:51):
Oh you either do what we say or well, slash
your tires and we'll get violent okay from the you know,
the same network saying, oh, this is hate We're worried
about hate speech. How about hate actions? James in Texas,
God bless Texas. How are you, James? Glad you called?
Speaker 3 (17:09):
I'm doing all right, mister Sean. How about you.
Speaker 1 (17:13):
I'm hanging in there. I'm dealing with a compressed nerve
in my neck from lifting. Not fun.
Speaker 3 (17:19):
Yeah, well, hey, I just want to let you know
I've been listening to you ever since President Trump walked
down or went down the escalators with his wife back
on his first his first run when he won. So
I guess I had a question, but now it's more
of a statement. Maybe it'll be a question later. I
don't know. I have so much I would love to
talk to you about. But you know, we know that
there's well I'm pretty sure that there's laws on the books,
(17:41):
federal laws on the books about all the stuff that
has taken place since he first ran for president. And
what's really disheartening is, after all these years, not one
of the people that played a role in trying to attack,
trying to do things to him, the spye, the stuff
that was going on, we all you know, I mean,
(18:02):
you've talked about it over and over and over again.
These people violated federal hall. They they did things way way,
way way out and you know, the out of bounds.
And not one of them, not one of them is
going to be held or has been held accountable, None
of them that have really you know, like been on
TV a lot or on these liberal media stations where
they talk and they talked this nonsense and just like
(18:25):
what you got through just talking about going out and
slashing tires. This is supposed to be celebrated for some reason.
It drives me nuts. And then you know Friday, you
were talking about, you know, our our hard working congressmen
and senators phone wreckerds being you know, being spied on,
you being spied on. They were all they all violated
laws and not none of them are going to be
held accountable. And now we got James Coney. What the charges
(18:47):
were dropped? I'm you know, it's just.
Speaker 1 (18:50):
It's very well, let me just tell you. And I
was very straightforward with everybody. The statute of limitations on
the major issues involving call me had long since expired.
The only reason I always felt and I said that
this is low hanging fruit lying to Congress. As serious
as that is, other people go to jail for that.
(19:11):
And he's an FBI director, and I think, you know,
those burn bags are burning HOMEI I am pretty confident
that this the charges will be reinstated in both cases.
But the frustrating part, and so many people ask me,
how come nothing ever happens. And the answer is we've
(19:33):
not been in power to enforce the laws of our
land and you know enforce you know, our constitutional republic.
I think a lot of horrible, dangerous, terrible things have happened.
The only the only way this can happen is a
very difficult legal maneuver, which is what FBI Director Cash
(19:54):
Pattel discussed, has not talked about it recently, which is
it has there can they be proven a grand conspiracy
to undermine Donald Trump from that moment you described when
he came down the escalator with his wife Milania, and
what they tried to do with a dirty dossier that
they knew was dirty and political in nature, and how
(20:17):
they used it to spy on Canada Trump transition team
Trump President Trump. You know, now we know about the
declassification from Tulci Gabbard that they took, you know, career
intelligence officials and their assessment that there was no Trump
Russia collusion. And according to what we know from Tulsi
(20:38):
Gabbard and this declassification, then they ordered a new intelligence
assessment report because they didn't like what the real one said,
and that one came to a very different conclusion. Then
you have Hunter Biden laptop. They had verified its authenticity
March at twenty twenty. They go through the whole summer,
meeting weekly with big Tech to prebunk what they knew
to be very very true. Are they putting center blocks
(21:02):
on the scale of an election? Did they weaponize our
justice system as a means of ever making ever allowing
Donald Trump even an opportunity to become the president of
our country? And they did everything humanly possible in terms
of the use of law, fair and the weaponization of
justice to destroy this man, and in spite of all
(21:25):
of those attempts, he was still elected. It's a very
dangerous time for a constitutional republic when all of this
happens and people don't get held accountable. You know, look
at Arctic Frost, look at all these senators, and you know,
all these conservative groups and Jim Jordan and all these
other people you know that are being flat out spied
(21:48):
on just because they support Donald Trump. You know, I've
not complained, you know, outwardly that much about all the
stuff they did to me, but it's it's not been
exactly pleasant. But you know, does anyone really want to
hear me whine? I don't want to hear me whine
ungrateful that that. You know, I chose this life. I
(22:11):
chose this career to be a public figure. I get it. However,
I never thought my private personal text messages that they
never got from me would ever be released to the public.
And we're talking about thousands of messages. I kind of
view that as an invasion of privacy, don't you absolutely?
Speaker 3 (22:28):
Absolutely? I mean you were absolutely. That's what That's what's
so frustrating.
Speaker 1 (22:34):
There are two things that I'm going to warn you about.
I mean, it's it's Thanksgiving week. Everybody's on vacation this week.
You know, I'm spending most of my spare time trying
to get this next straightened out. It's been impacting my
life for a month. And I will tell you that
we're going to hit the We're going to hit the
ground running in January. It's going to be the most
(22:56):
important mid terms of our lifetime, and it's going to
take all hands on debn Otherwise it's going to be
two years of never ending lawfare, weaponization, investigation, impeachment, and
the Trump agenda will be stopped in its tracks. And
then when we get through that election, then I'm going
(23:16):
to do my own vetting like I did in twenty
fifteen and sixteen, and I will I will give my
best recommendation who I think is the best person who
carry on the mantle of President Trump. And I'm sure
people will spend years probably criticizing me. That happened the
last time when I supported Trump ahead of most other people.
(23:38):
That's a preview of coming attractions. Linda, how right am
I on that prediction? I'd say you're pretty spottling on that. Yeah,
Linda doesn't say she doesn't say many complimentary things, so
that's a good thing. Hey, that's not true. Easy, it easy.
What are you doing?
Speaker 4 (23:57):
Listen?
Speaker 10 (23:57):
If you were looking for a cupcake producer, you definitely
the wrong show.
Speaker 1 (24:02):
Well you were a cupcake for for the first five years.
Did you think you talked? I was just quiet. It's different. Yeah,
I can't. I can't even imagine that person, James, Thank you,
buddy Mac in New Orleans. Mac, how are you glad
you called?
Speaker 4 (24:14):
Wonderful? Thank you for taking ma call. How are you today?
And I hope everything is great there where you are
in sunny South Florida?
Speaker 1 (24:21):
It's good. What's going on with you?
Speaker 4 (24:22):
My friend, Well, every day is Saturday. But I'd like
to point something out. These wonderful patriotic politicos who have
been in federal civil service, who've been in the military
and stuff. Great for their service, grateful for that. However,
where was all they're upset when the Obama administration was
(24:43):
droning US citizens? Where was their upset whenever the Biden
White House was creating malicious prosecution against you know, President Trump.
Where was their upset when members of the staff, members
of the administration were prosecuted for bs Where was.
Speaker 1 (25:08):
The I mean, why, why don't you answer your own question?
Because you're you're very smart. What's the answer to the question?
Speaker 4 (25:15):
Oh? I understand that, But that's my point. Where's the
where's the the upset with the wrongdoing? There's no wrongdoing
set forth in the in the in these people that
are pointing out what they want done supposedly.
Speaker 1 (25:31):
Well said, and and here's the thing, what they what
they've done here is dangerous. What they've done here is
extraordinarily dangerous. The question is does it does it cross
the threshold into law breaking? And will they help be
held accountable? That's the question.
Speaker 4 (25:50):
Uh.
Speaker 1 (25:50):
I don't like to give false. Hope, I hope, I
hope they are Mac. We love New Orleans, We love you,
Thank you have a great Thanksgiving All right, quick break
right back to our phones eight hundred and nine four one,
Shawn our number as we continue.
Speaker 4 (26:09):
The final hour roundup is next. You do not want
to miss it, and stay tuned for the final hour
free for all on the Sean Hannity Show.
Speaker 1 (26:46):
At back our busy phones eight hundred nine four one, Shawn.
If you want to be a part of the program,
Steph in California.
Speaker 10 (26:52):
High Hi, Sean. I've been a listener for many years
and I appreciate how much I learn every time I listen.
I wanted to bring to light just the tactics that
they use, and it was used in that when those
senators made that video plug and also in just the
(27:12):
last clip you played. And what they tend to do
is they they usually make some statements that are very
muddy and then they get to what they want you
to do, which, of course, in the case of those senators,
it was to defy the orders. And here's how they
do it. I'll just bring that as the example. Their
first statement, they said that this administration was pitting the
(27:34):
military against citizens. And then they go on with another
statement that says, here goes more fear, another false claim,
threats to the constitution are now here at home, was
coming from within, And then they went on with you
can refuse, and then of course you must refuse the orders,
(27:56):
and your last clip with them talking about the same
type of thing with the with the ice. They just
did the same exact thing. And this is this is
right out of the Marxist playbook. They make you fearful.
They make statements that are are muddy or untrue, but palatable,
(28:16):
and of course to the cult on the left, these
statements are very palatable, and they believe them wholeheartedly, that
this administration is a threat to the constitution, that they're
pitting the military against poor innocent citizens, and that everyone
must just get up and fight, and you know, and say.
Speaker 1 (28:36):
They are they are pushing our military to violate their
oath and the Constitution by what they're doing, and I
should I believe they should all be held accountable. And
for Slotgun to admit there's no justification that she can
think of makes it more reckless. Well said Steph, I'm
just running out of time. I'm up on the Clock
(28:56):
I do appreciate your call
Hour or two Sean Hannity Show, eight hundred and ninety
(00:02):
four one. Shawn is on number if you want to
be a part of the program. A federal judge Clinton appointee,
Cameron Mcowan Curry dismissing the charges against former FBI Director
James Comy and New York Attorney General Letitia James on Monday.
The judge dismissing the case brought in the Northern Virginia
(00:25):
area by Lindsay Halligan on the basis that Halligan is
quote not lawfully serving as serving as the interim US
attorney for the Eastern District of New Jersey. Let me
go specifically to some of the cuts. And you know,
one of the problems with all of the issues involving
James Comy is the statute limitations have run out. And
(00:47):
as I've been telling you, this is the low hanging fruit.
And this is because the testimony he gave back in
twenty twenty, so the statute limitations had not run out
at the time. And he's testifying to Ted Cruz that
he denied he approved the leak of classified information, of
which I believe I've been convinced it seems to be
a more than prima facia case against him. Here's what
(01:10):
he said to Ted Kruz.
Speaker 2 (01:12):
He then asked you, quote, have you ever authorized someone
else of the FBI to be an anonymous source in
news reports about the Trump investigation or the Clinton administration?
You responded again under oath No. Now, as you know,
mister McCabe, who works for you, has publicly and repeatedly
stated that he leaked information to the Wall Street Journal
(01:33):
and that you were a directly aware of it and
that you directly authorized it. Now, what mister McCabe is
saying and what you testified to this committee cannot both
be true. One or the other is false. Who's telling
the truth.
Speaker 1 (01:48):
I can only speak to my testimony.
Speaker 3 (01:50):
I stand by what the testimony you summarized that I
gave in May of twenty seventeen.
Speaker 2 (01:54):
So your testimony is you've never authorized anyone to leak.
And mister mccab when if he says contra tray is
not telling the truth?
Speaker 4 (02:01):
Is that correct?
Speaker 3 (02:02):
Again, I'm not going to characterize Andy's testimony, but mine
is the same. Today, now we.
Speaker 1 (02:07):
Do have an update as this Clinton appointed judge in
this particular case, Judge Cameron Curry dismissed the false charges
charge against Comy and bank fraud charges against James without prejudice,
meaning the charges could be brought again. Curry, nominated by
Bill Clinton to a seat on the US District Court,
(02:28):
was confirmed by the US Senate in nineteen ninety four.
Here's a clip of that's pretty viral at this point.
Twenty twenty, again testifying to Lindsey Graham, he did not
recall receiving intel on Hillary Clinton's camp pushing Russian disinformation.
Speaker 5 (02:45):
So do you recall getting an inquiry from the CIA,
excuse me, the in diligence community in September twenty sixteen
about a concern that the Clinton campaign was going to
create a scandal regain guarding Trump in Russia. I do not.
You don't remember getting an investigatory lead from the intelligence community.
(03:12):
September the seventh, twenty sixteen, the US intelligence officials forded
an investigative referral of to FBI Director James Gummy and
Direct Assistant Director of Counter Intelligence Peter Struck regarding US
presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's approval of a plan concerning US
presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering US elections
(03:37):
as a means of distracting the public from her use
of a private email server. You don't remember getting that
or being taught that doesn't Okay, that's a pretty stunny thing.
It didn't ring a bell, but it did come to you.
Speaker 1 (03:52):
Now, if you go back to the burned bags that
were found in the at the FBI, these are bags
that were supposed to be incinerated. But if you go back,
there was pretty self incriminating notes and written notes of
James Comy. I'm sure he thought they were long gone.
In many ways, I think pretty damning that he knew
(04:13):
almost you know, from the get go that it was
this whole Clinton narrative, you know, was was garbage. Anyway,
here to weigh in on this and what are the
next steps in a likely appeal in this case. David Shown,
former counsel for President Trump. Greg Jarrett, Fox News legal analyst,
New York Times bestselling author, Greg, Start with you. You wrote
(04:33):
a column about all of this, and it seemed that
those the information in the burn bags contradict what he
testified to.
Speaker 6 (04:41):
Oh, it absolutely does. And you know, the more that
the FBI discovers evidence that was hidden away, the more
incriminating it is for James Comy. But you know today's
decision by the Virginia judge. I think it's the wrong decision.
It will will likely be appealed to a higher court.
(05:02):
But in the meantime, since Judge Curry dismissed the case,
as you point out, Shawn, without prejudice, that means the
statute of limitations, which has now expired, is told or
extended for six more months, so that both Comey and
James can be re indicted with the exact same charges,
(05:26):
but with a different US attorney signing onto it. In fact,
given the additional evidence discovered against Cumy, I think additional
charges could be added. Look, this was entirely foreseeable that
this Clinton appointed judge would rule against the Trump administration.
I think Judge Curry is misinterpreting the law and the
(05:47):
constitution and ruling that Lindsay Halligan was invalidly appointed. The
president has the sole power of appointment whenever there's a vacancy,
and that's what happened. Eric Sebert, who was interim appointed, expired.
He was kept on by as US Attorney by a
vote of the judges in the district, which the law provides,
(06:09):
but he later departed that left of vacancy, which President
Trump filled with Halligan. There is nothing in the law
that forbids a president from making multiple appointments. But you know,
this Democrat judge was looking for an excuse to toss
the case and conjured one up. But it's a pyrrhic
victory because they'll be reindicted.
Speaker 1 (06:31):
What are your thoughts, David chum I.
Speaker 7 (06:32):
Agree one hundred percent they will be re indicted. The
statute Greg talks about in the eighteen USC thirty two
to eighty eight allows them six months now to reindict,
so the statute limitations doesn't become an issue, and if
they appeal it, then sixty days from when the decision
will become final. Aft the Court of Appeals to the
Supreme Court has weighed in. But you know, there are
many arguments that he made here, some very distinguished professor's professors.
(06:54):
Stephen Calabresi has said this section of this statute that
allows federal judge's authority in here to appoint the US
attorney is unconstitutional. Another judge, Paul Castell. Former Judge Paul
Castell said even if it's constitutional, that it still is
not lawful for this. Uh, this statue not lawful. So
there are a number of arguments to be made still,
(07:16):
but I think they will be reindicted. I have to
tell you. I mean, Lindsay Halligan showed great courage in
stepping up here on short notice, uh, filling the shoes.
Remember in this office, Coney had a relative working in
the office when Siebert was the US attorney. That relative left.
So Lindsay Halligan, you know, came into a situation that
was hostile from the start. I have to be, you know,
(07:38):
to be perfectly candid from everything in all the media
reports that we've seen, the Justice Department should have given
her much more support. She she did what she was
asked to do, and she did it because she believed
in it, and because the facts were there and the
evidence is there supported. I have no question that there'll
be reindictments in both cases. You might say me than
(07:58):
you might say, why not address the things on the merits?
If you're a public figure like Letitia James Racomi, wouldn't
you want this aired on the merits? If you think
you're right now?
Speaker 1 (08:07):
I would think so. Yeah. But I mean, as I
pointed out many times on this program that this is
the low hanging fruit. Moving on to a separate issue,
separate and apart, is we have this issue of you know,
six lawmakers, senators and congressman, this tape that they put
out at demanding that, in fact, that the military and
(08:31):
the CIA have a duty and an obligation to disobey
the orders of the commander in chief. When confronted on
this issue this weekend, Elie Slockin, Senator Michigan, said she's
not aware of President Trump making any illegal orders. She
made this comment on ABC. Here's what she said.
Speaker 3 (08:51):
So let's talk right now.
Speaker 8 (08:52):
Do you believe President Trump has issued any illegal orders?
Speaker 9 (08:57):
To my knowledge, I am not aware of things that
are illegal, but certainly there are some legal gymnastics that
are going on with these Caribbean strikes and everything related
to Venezuela.
Speaker 1 (09:07):
Okay, now the president has you believes that this is
seditious behavior. It's been making the rounds all over the place.
Eighteen USC. Twenty three, eighty seven. We have talked about
it on this program, and the idea that it's optional
to obey the president's orders. She's admitting that she doesn't
(09:27):
have a specific example. I don't know what the proper
analysis of this is in terms of a legal effect.
But here, if you look at the statute, it activities
affecting the Armed Forces general. It makes it a federal
crime to do any of the following with the intent
to interfere with US military operations, advise urge or attempt
(09:49):
to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty among
members of the US military, or obstruct or attempt to
obstruct recruiting, enlistment, general milleritary operations, or three distribute materials
advocating any of the above. The law does not require
advocating the overthrow of the government. It's specifically about undermining
(10:10):
the functioning of the US military. Do you think that
that particular code greg Jarrett, eighteen USC. Twenty three eighty
seven is applicable to the senators In Congressman.
Speaker 6 (10:22):
Percent, it is well established that orders by the President
are presumed to be lawful and must be obeyed at
all times by service members. Now one can reasonably debate
whether calling on those service members to disobey unlawful orders
actually rises to the level of sedition, which is a
(10:45):
very high threshold. But Sean, you're correct it does violate
a very specific different law passed by Congress, which makes
it a crime to undermine the loyalty in the morale
or the discipline of US forces by encouraging or urging
or advising them to disobey orders. Eighteen Usc. Twenty three
(11:09):
eighty seven. What's so dishonest and diabolical about what these
six members of Congress did is that their statements insinuated
that Trump had issued unlawful orders, when in fact there's
no evidence that he has done that. And when questioned,
you played the clip, none of them has cited a
(11:30):
single illegal order. So you know, it's like the old
prosecutor who asks an innocent man, how often do you
beat your wife? The question contains a false statement, so
it sounds incriminating. That's what they did to Trump here
in their videotape statements. They tried to pretend that he's
(11:51):
done something unlawful when in fact he hasn't.
Speaker 7 (11:55):
Your take, David Shan, Yeah, I mean, I hate to
be just a yes man on the show, but you
and Greg are both correct. Eighteen Usc. Twenty three eighty seven.
Applicable penalty is up to ten years. I think there's
another statute that could apply. Eighteen USC. Thirteen eighty one
makes it a crime to entice to procure someone to dessert.
That's the logical conclusion here would be desertion the service
(12:16):
member him or herself. First of all, you have an
absolute duty not to obey a manifestly unlawful order. And
it's no defense to say I'm just obeying orders. That's
not what we have here. And so for a service
member to disobey disorder all kinds of punishments. There's non
judicial punishments under Article fifteen, administrative penalties so on, or
there's a court martial confinement up to two years if
(12:37):
it's a general order up to five years, if you
willfully disbey a commissioned officer discharge maybe and in times
of war, frankly, it's death penalty, which I think is
what President Trump was referring to. The penalty is out
there under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. If you
disobey a superior off willfully disobey a superior off commissioned
officers order in time of war, you do are subject
(12:59):
to the death penalty.
Speaker 1 (13:00):
Well, that's going to be interesting to watch. By the way,
Letitia James It's simple. Either she claimed on papers that
it was her primary residence or she didn't. It's really
that simple. Anyway. We continue now with David Shoon and
Greg Jareder with us last question for you only, David,
and I only have about thirty seconds for you to answer.
You were Jeffrey Epstein's attorney in the final days of
(13:22):
his life. You specifically asked him, and you've said it
on this program before, whether he had anything any incriminating
information on Donald Trump. He told you what he told me.
Speaker 7 (13:32):
He absolutely did not. And what I've said many times
is you can try to interpret all of these emails
and so on, and the mention of names and putting
innocent people into it because their name is mentioned without
any question. Jeffrey Epstein had an absolute interest, if it
were true, in bringing forth any dirt he had on
Donald Trump, to try to gain leverage in his face.
The fact that at that point.
Speaker 1 (13:52):
Is, but he also hated Donald Trump because Donald Trump
humiliated him by throwing him out of his club publicly
and spectac acculately and loudly. Would he do that if,
in fact he knew he had incriminating information on him?
Speaker 7 (14:05):
If he had incriminated information. He certainly would have tried
to hurt him if he could, but he didn't have
that information. And you know, I know people have painted
a monst and so on. He was not in the
business of just making up something about somebody else, and
he wasn't going to do that to President Trump. And
that's what it would have been required. So that to
me speaks louder than anything. He had the incentive then
to use it if he had it, and he didn't.
Speaker 1 (14:27):
All right, we appreciate both of you, Greg Jarrett and
David Chan Thank you both. Eight hundred nine four one.
Shawn is on number. If you want to be a
part of the program, we'll get to your calls coming
up here. Eight hundred nine to four one, Shawn.
Speaker 4 (14:38):
All right.
Speaker 1 (14:39):
Let us well before I get there, you know MS
DNC never going to change. They're like apparently going through
some name change. We're not going to change our name,
MS DNC, MS Socialist DNC, I don't know whatever you
want to call it. So listen to one guest says
that the Trump administration is going to bring back hate speech.
I want you to pay close er to mention to this.
Speaker 9 (15:01):
But my point is that there's been a broader effort
here obviously to sort of like bring back or destigmatize
I guess, hate speech and restigmatize or or stigmatize anew
you know, American heroes and rainbows and other you know DEI.
There's been a lot going on within this Department of
(15:23):
Defense and DHS in this particular case, to try to
basically get rid of, get rid of diversity, get rid
of like any sort of recognition that there should be something,
you know, that we should celebrate our difference.
Speaker 1 (15:37):
Yea and crum is trying to bring back hate speech.
Let's stay on the same network. And a commentator uh
celebrating ANTII protesters that were slashing tires, casing agents out
of buildings. Is this hate speech? Listen.
Speaker 8 (15:58):
My MVP of the week is all of the students
who walked out in Charlotte this week in protest of ICE.
Speaker 1 (16:03):
Rates remind us because we didn't talk about it.
Speaker 8 (16:05):
So Charlotte's web is basically ICE Department of Homeland Securities
plan to arrest thousands of supposedly undocumented people in Charlotte.
It has terrorized the city. It is shut down traffic.
You have schools where thirty forty percent of the kids
are not showing up. And these young people on their own,
without politicians, without mom, without mom and dad, said we're
standing against this. We want our country to be better.
And thousands of them walk out of their schools in
(16:27):
protests to say we don't want ICE here. In addition
to the fact, and I won't say that I'm suggesting
this behavior, but ICE agents have found that their tires
are slashed. They have been found that they have been
chased out of it. Yes, they have been chased out
of buildings, chased out.
Speaker 1 (16:40):
Of WRESTLERUS behavior.
Speaker 8 (16:41):
It is dangerous behavior, but it is a demonstration that
the American public, when they're not being listened to, these
are the options that will take I hope this administration
listens and pulls back these ICE rates.
Speaker 1 (16:51):
Oh you either do what we say or well, slash
your tires and we'll get violent okay from the you know,
the same network saying, oh, this is hate We're worried
about hate speech. How about hate actions? James in Texas,
God bless Texas. How are you, James? Glad you called?
Speaker 3 (17:09):
I'm doing all right, mister Sean. How about you.
Speaker 1 (17:13):
I'm hanging in there. I'm dealing with a compressed nerve
in my neck from lifting. Not fun.
Speaker 3 (17:19):
Yeah, well, hey, I just want to let you know
I've been listening to you ever since President Trump walked
down or went down the escalators with his wife back
on his first his first run when he won. So
I guess I had a question, but now it's more
of a statement. Maybe it'll be a question later. I
don't know. I have so much I would love to
talk to you about. But you know, we know that
there's well I'm pretty sure that there's laws on the books,
(17:41):
federal laws on the books about all the stuff that
has taken place since he first ran for president. And
what's really disheartening is, after all these years, not one
of the people that played a role in trying to attack,
trying to do things to him, the spye, the stuff
that was going on, we all you know, I mean,
(18:02):
you've talked about it over and over and over again.
These people violated federal hall. They they did things way way,
way way out and you know, the out of bounds.
And not one of them, not one of them is
going to be held or has been held accountable, None
of them that have really you know, like been on
TV a lot or on these liberal media stations where
they talk and they talked this nonsense and just like
(18:25):
what you got through just talking about going out and
slashing tires. This is supposed to be celebrated for some reason.
It drives me nuts. And then you know Friday, you
were talking about, you know, our our hard working congressmen
and senators phone wreckerds being you know, being spied on,
you being spied on. They were all they all violated
laws and not none of them are going to be
held accountable. And now we got James Coney. What the charges
(18:47):
were dropped? I'm you know, it's just.
Speaker 1 (18:50):
It's very well, let me just tell you. And I
was very straightforward with everybody. The statute of limitations on
the major issues involving call me had long since expired.
The only reason I always felt and I said that
this is low hanging fruit lying to Congress. As serious
as that is, other people go to jail for that.
(19:11):
And he's an FBI director, and I think, you know,
those burn bags are burning HOMEI I am pretty confident
that this the charges will be reinstated in both cases.
But the frustrating part, and so many people ask me,
how come nothing ever happens. And the answer is we've
(19:33):
not been in power to enforce the laws of our
land and you know enforce you know, our constitutional republic.
I think a lot of horrible, dangerous, terrible things have happened.
The only the only way this can happen is a
very difficult legal maneuver, which is what FBI Director Cash
(19:54):
Pattel discussed, has not talked about it recently, which is
it has there can they be proven a grand conspiracy
to undermine Donald Trump from that moment you described when
he came down the escalator with his wife Milania, and
what they tried to do with a dirty dossier that
they knew was dirty and political in nature, and how
(20:17):
they used it to spy on Canada Trump transition team
Trump President Trump. You know, now we know about the
declassification from Tulci Gabbard that they took, you know, career
intelligence officials and their assessment that there was no Trump
Russia collusion. And according to what we know from Tulsi
(20:38):
Gabbard and this declassification, then they ordered a new intelligence
assessment report because they didn't like what the real one said,
and that one came to a very different conclusion. Then
you have Hunter Biden laptop. They had verified its authenticity
March at twenty twenty. They go through the whole summer,
meeting weekly with big Tech to prebunk what they knew
to be very very true. Are they putting center blocks
(21:02):
on the scale of an election? Did they weaponize our
justice system as a means of ever making ever allowing
Donald Trump even an opportunity to become the president of
our country? And they did everything humanly possible in terms
of the use of law, fair and the weaponization of
justice to destroy this man, and in spite of all
(21:25):
of those attempts, he was still elected. It's a very
dangerous time for a constitutional republic when all of this
happens and people don't get held accountable. You know, look
at Arctic Frost, look at all these senators, and you know,
all these conservative groups and Jim Jordan and all these
other people you know that are being flat out spied
(21:48):
on just because they support Donald Trump. You know, I've
not complained, you know, outwardly that much about all the
stuff they did to me, but it's it's not been
exactly pleasant. But you know, does anyone really want to
hear me whine? I don't want to hear me whine
ungrateful that that. You know, I chose this life. I
(22:11):
chose this career to be a public figure. I get it. However,
I never thought my private personal text messages that they
never got from me would ever be released to the public.
And we're talking about thousands of messages. I kind of
view that as an invasion of privacy, don't you absolutely?
Speaker 3 (22:28):
Absolutely? I mean you were absolutely. That's what That's what's
so frustrating.
Speaker 1 (22:34):
There are two things that I'm going to warn you about.
I mean, it's it's Thanksgiving week. Everybody's on vacation this week.
You know, I'm spending most of my spare time trying
to get this next straightened out. It's been impacting my
life for a month. And I will tell you that
we're going to hit the We're going to hit the
ground running in January. It's going to be the most
(22:56):
important mid terms of our lifetime, and it's going to
take all hands on debn Otherwise it's going to be
two years of never ending lawfare, weaponization, investigation, impeachment, and
the Trump agenda will be stopped in its tracks. And
then when we get through that election, then I'm going
(23:16):
to do my own vetting like I did in twenty
fifteen and sixteen, and I will I will give my
best recommendation who I think is the best person who
carry on the mantle of President Trump. And I'm sure
people will spend years probably criticizing me. That happened the
last time when I supported Trump ahead of most other people.
(23:38):
That's a preview of coming attractions. Linda, how right am
I on that prediction? I'd say you're pretty spottling on that. Yeah,
Linda doesn't say she doesn't say many complimentary things, so
that's a good thing. Hey, that's not true. Easy, it easy.
What are you doing?
Speaker 4 (23:57):
Listen?
Speaker 10 (23:57):
If you were looking for a cupcake producer, you definitely
the wrong show.
Speaker 1 (24:02):
Well you were a cupcake for for the first five years.
Did you think you talked? I was just quiet. It's different. Yeah,
I can't. I can't even imagine that person, James, Thank you,
buddy Mac in New Orleans. Mac, how are you glad
you called?
Speaker 4 (24:14):
Wonderful? Thank you for taking ma call. How are you today?
And I hope everything is great there where you are
in sunny South Florida?
Speaker 1 (24:21):
It's good. What's going on with you?
Speaker 4 (24:22):
My friend, Well, every day is Saturday. But I'd like
to point something out. These wonderful patriotic politicos who have
been in federal civil service, who've been in the military
and stuff. Great for their service, grateful for that. However,
where was all they're upset when the Obama administration was
(24:43):
droning US citizens? Where was their upset whenever the Biden
White House was creating malicious prosecution against you know, President Trump.
Where was their upset when members of the staff, members
of the administration were prosecuted for bs Where was.
Speaker 1 (25:08):
The I mean, why, why don't you answer your own question?
Because you're you're very smart. What's the answer to the question?
Speaker 4 (25:15):
Oh? I understand that, But that's my point. Where's the
where's the the upset with the wrongdoing? There's no wrongdoing
set forth in the in the in these people that
are pointing out what they want done supposedly.
Speaker 1 (25:31):
Well said, and and here's the thing, what they what
they've done here is dangerous. What they've done here is
extraordinarily dangerous. The question is does it does it cross
the threshold into law breaking? And will they help be
held accountable? That's the question.
Speaker 4 (25:50):
Uh.
Speaker 1 (25:50):
I don't like to give false. Hope, I hope, I
hope they are Mac. We love New Orleans, We love you,
Thank you have a great Thanksgiving All right, quick break
right back to our phones eight hundred and nine four one,
Shawn our number as we continue.
Speaker 4 (26:09):
The final hour roundup is next. You do not want
to miss it, and stay tuned for the final hour
free for all on the Sean Hannity Show.
Speaker 1 (26:46):
At back our busy phones eight hundred nine four one, Shawn.
If you want to be a part of the program,
Steph in California.
Speaker 10 (26:52):
High Hi, Sean. I've been a listener for many years
and I appreciate how much I learn every time I listen.
I wanted to bring to light just the tactics that
they use, and it was used in that when those
senators made that video plug and also in just the
(27:12):
last clip you played. And what they tend to do
is they they usually make some statements that are very
muddy and then they get to what they want you
to do, which, of course, in the case of those senators,
it was to defy the orders. And here's how they
do it. I'll just bring that as the example. Their
first statement, they said that this administration was pitting the
(27:34):
military against citizens. And then they go on with another
statement that says, here goes more fear, another false claim,
threats to the constitution are now here at home, was
coming from within, And then they went on with you
can refuse, and then of course you must refuse the orders,
(27:56):
and your last clip with them talking about the same
type of thing with the with the ice. They just
did the same exact thing. And this is this is
right out of the Marxist playbook. They make you fearful.
They make statements that are are muddy or untrue, but palatable,
(28:16):
and of course to the cult on the left, these
statements are very palatable, and they believe them wholeheartedly, that
this administration is a threat to the constitution, that they're
pitting the military against poor innocent citizens, and that everyone
must just get up and fight, and you know, and say.
Speaker 1 (28:36):
They are they are pushing our military to violate their
oath and the Constitution by what they're doing, and I
should I believe they should all be held accountable. And
for Slotgun to admit there's no justification that she can
think of makes it more reckless. Well said Steph, I'm
just running out of time. I'm up on the Clock
(28:56):
I do appreciate your call
The Sean Hannity Show News
Host
Sean Hannity
Popular Podcasts
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.
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
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.