Best of Hannity - Jay Sekulow - March 29th, Hour 2

Best of Hannity featuring Jay Sekulow.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
All right, thanks you Goott Channon Hour two Sean Hanneday's
show toll free our number this Friday, eight hundred and
ninety four one Sean, if you want to be a
part of the program.

Speaker 2 (00:10):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (00:10):
Pretty fascinating when Fannie Willis in light of the ruling
today that even legal analysts on fake news stations are saying,
it's pretty devastating to her. Uh, but listen to her
in twenty twenty calling for the previous DA to be
removed from office for doing exactly what she did.

Speaker 3 (00:30):
Listen you say, Ms willis, Judge Willis? What law did
he violate?

Speaker 2 (00:35):
A few?

Speaker 3 (00:36):
But let's try this on for size. Oh CGA forty
five eleven.

Speaker 4 (00:41):
Five Extortion sub Section eight, as used in this cold section,
The term extortion means an unlawful taking by a public
law officer, under color of his office, from any person
of any money or thing of value that is not
due to him, or more.

Speaker 5 (00:58):
That is due to him.

Speaker 4 (01:00):
Any public officer shall.

Speaker 3 (01:01):
Be, by himself, his deputy, or his agent, or other
in person employed by him, be guilty of extortion.

Speaker 4 (01:09):
In receiving other and greater fees.

Speaker 3 (01:12):
Than by law or allow him, shall be guilty of
a misdemeanor and repeat this part for me, and shall
be dismissed from office, not maybe shall be dismissed from office.

Speaker 1 (01:23):
Then we've got Fannie Willis accusing. You might recall her
critics of playing the race card, which came out pretty early. Uh,
let me play that for you as well.

Speaker 3 (01:36):
Why does and so many others question decision and special
counsel lord.

Speaker 5 (01:44):
Your law, perfect job. I'm a little confused.

Speaker 3 (01:49):
I am plenty of three special counselors?

Speaker 6 (01:52):
Is my right to do?

Speaker 5 (01:54):
Pay them all the same? They won.

Speaker 3 (02:00):
One white woman, a good personal friend and great boyman.

Speaker 6 (02:06):
The superstar.

Speaker 3 (02:07):
I tell you, I hired one white man brew my
friend and a great boy.

Speaker 4 (02:16):
And I hire one black man, another.

Speaker 5 (02:18):
Superstar, a great friend.

Speaker 2 (02:22):
And a great boy.

Speaker 4 (02:24):
Oh lord, they gonna be mad when I call them
my own needs nonsense.

Speaker 5 (02:29):
First thing they say, oh, she gonna play the race
card now?

Speaker 3 (02:34):
But no, God, isn't it them who's playing the race card?

Speaker 4 (02:38):
When they only question one?

Speaker 5 (02:41):
Isn't it them playing the race card?

Speaker 3 (02:43):
When they constantly think I need someone for some of
a jurisdician in some of us stay to tell me
how to do a job I've been doing almost thirty.

Speaker 1 (02:55):
Years now you even have MSDNC they're analyst calling for
Fannie Willis to step down, calling it an almost fatal blow.
Even at fake news CNN, they're saying their calls for
Fannie Willis, you know, ruling of a gift for Trump
and code defendants, and how optics matter. Well, you think

(03:16):
the affair, as I said earlier in the last how
the affair was real that we know, you know, without
sufficient evidence the DA acquired a personal stake in the prosecution,
or that her financial arrangements had any impact in the case,
the defendant's claim of an actual conflict must be denied.
Excuse me, And then you go on to this whole

(03:37):
appearance of impropriety. It's not an appearance because it actually happened,
and then going as far as even saying that the
case is tainted and how reasonable people reasonable questions about
whether the DA and her hand selected lead a district
attorney testified untruthfully about the timing of their relationship. I
guarantee you if it was a Republican or you had

(03:59):
the last name Trump, you probably would be looking at
potential perjury charges here, you know. So we'll see what
happens anyway here to weigh in on all of this.
He's the chief counsel for the American Center for Law
and Justice. They have been they have been filing amikas
briefs in all of these big Supreme Court cases. Probably

(04:20):
I would say they had the defining brief filed in
the Colorado case. And in terms of allowing Donald Trump's
name on the ballot. Jay Sekulo's back with us also
full disclosure my personal attorney, which he's very embarrassed by.

Speaker 5 (04:36):
Sir, Welcome back to the program.

Speaker 2 (04:37):
And I'm never embarrassed representing you or your family. Just
to be clear, I want the record, your.

Speaker 1 (04:44):
Honor, I want the record to show let's get your
take on this pretty devastating and what do you think
it means and where do you think it goes?

Speaker 2 (04:53):
Well, look, I mean let me go back a couple
of steps. And you know, when you look at the
Fourteenth Amendment cases, the attempts to take Trump off the ballot,
we actually represented the Colorado gopiece. We were a party
in that case. It wasn't just a friend of the
court brief, it was a meriage brief. Look, I think
this judge got it wrong. You cannot conclude, and he
did say this. He concludes that, and this is the

(05:20):
odor of mendacity surrounds this case. That means the odor
of false statements of lying surround this case. Well, then,
how in the world did you let either one of
them stand? How in the world did you let either
Willis or Wade maintain their position? So here's the problem.

(05:41):
He also finds that the speech that Fawnie gave it
that church was legally improper, but he still gives her
the choice to decide who stays, whether it's her or Wade,
and if Wade goes, she gets to prosecute the case.
I think this was ridiculous. I think this judge was wrong.
I think it was the lack of experience. I've been

(06:02):
practicing law about ten years and he got it wrong.
I mean, I know somethin it's bad for Funny because
he makes these findings, but the conclusion of law allows
her to proceed. And I think that's out really outrageous.

Speaker 1 (06:13):
And is there any any effort, any possibility of appealing
this or taking this to a higher level.

Speaker 2 (06:20):
Yeah, so you can follow an interlocatory appeal to the
Georgia Court of Appeals, it's discretionary, not likely they will
grant it at this stage. So I think that they're
going to have the lawyers are going to have to
proceed in this case recognizing that the Bonnie Willis will
be the prosecutor and Judge McAfee will be the judge,
and maybe his rulings will be better in some of
these other issues.

Speaker 5 (06:40):
Well, we'll hang on to say.

Speaker 1 (06:41):
Wouldn't that mean that the boyfriend that spent all this
money that she was paying him on their elaborate and
extravagant vacations, but he gets thrown overboard. You mean she's
not going to throw herself overboard.

Speaker 2 (06:53):
He gets thrown overboard, and they judge says, you know,
there's other forums or Swartz's authority, such as the General Assembly,
the State Ethics Board, the State barbed Georgia, Fulton County
Board of Commissioners, or the voters of Fulton County may
offer feedback on any unanswered questions. In other words, what
happens to the evidence that Wade collected when he shouldn't
have been there. We call it in the law the

(07:14):
fruit of the poisonous tree, and you cannot eat the
fruit of the poisonous tree, so all of the evidence
he gathered should be omitted. Judge really doesn't address that.
That'll probably come in a separate motion, I think.

Speaker 5 (07:26):
And where would that be filed? In the well?

Speaker 1 (07:28):
You're saying that if they went forward there, it would
go right back to that judge.

Speaker 2 (07:33):
Yeah, and the judge is up for elections, so if
he loses, he's not the judge it may well.

Speaker 1 (07:38):
I mean, I this is one thing a lot of
people didn't know now that they're not partisan elections. You
don't run as a Republican or a Democrat. But obviously
this guy has a higher profile than any other judge
in this election, so he had the most at stake here.
I don't know, I mean, was he threatened the needle
between perhaps his desired to stay on the bench.

Speaker 5 (08:00):
In this case?

Speaker 2 (08:02):
I don't think there's any question.

Speaker 1 (08:04):
We I mean, how could it not be in the
back of your mind, knowing that you got an election
in a couple of.

Speaker 2 (08:09):
Months, trying to stay on the bench. And he chastises
Fondy but doesn't throw off, gives her the option of
throwing herself off her weight. Why wuld what she's gonna do?

Speaker 6 (08:17):
Right?

Speaker 2 (08:19):
So, yeah, no, it's terrible.

Speaker 1 (08:23):
Let's look at at all the cases now that the
president is facing. There seems to be delays here, there,
and everywhere. We saw in the New York case, Salvin
braggs that he'd be okay with a thirty day extension
before the trial would start. It was supposed to start
I think next week actually, and now that's not going

(08:44):
to happen. And now it'll go at least another month,
and maybe there'll be other motions that are filed that
would prevent the start.

Speaker 5 (08:50):
Of that case.

Speaker 1 (08:52):
We're waiting for a lot of things to happen as
it relates to the Washington DC case, not the least
of which is the Supreme Court has decided to take
up the issue of presidential immunity. I know you're going
to be filing a brief in that case if you
haven't filed it already. And and then we got the
case down in Florida, where where the judge actually I thought,

(09:13):
brought up some very interesting points yesterday on this particular case,
and she questioned why Trump was the only person charged
with the handling of classified materials, which I think is
material to the case. In other words, do we have
equal justice under the law, equal application of our laws.

Speaker 2 (09:30):
John, she denied the motion to dismiss.

Speaker 1 (09:32):
He denied it to dismiss, but she What I found
interesting in the hearing was, you know, the idea that
she brought up, you know, in this case execution collective
prosecution exactly.

Speaker 2 (09:45):
So that can be made in another motion. And there
are two other motions pending. So let's go back, Jack,
So you got the newer case, the Album Brad case
has been proponed for at least thirty days. My feeling
is that's going to get postponed a lot longer. I
think that's going to go much slower. Think they're prepared.
They were just handing documents over to the defense lords,
which was absurd, you know, two weeks before trial. It's nonsense.

(10:06):
So that in that case is is a very weak case,
and everybody acknowledges that that's the weakest case. Jack Smith
has got a lot of hurdles.

Speaker 5 (10:12):
Well, slow down, though. It's a weak case.

Speaker 1 (10:14):
But it's a weak case brought in an a venue
that's not friendly towards Donald Trump. We saw that in
the civil trial, right, I mean, this judge who's who's
trying to decide a case based on whether or not.
The Trump organization put forward phony out valuations throughout the
entire trial, stuck to evaluation in mar A Lago that
was completely and utterly false and that mar A Lago

(10:38):
was eighteen million dollars and it's not. It was closer
to a billion dollars.

Speaker 2 (10:43):
I think that I think on appeal that judgment will
be cut in half or maybe even more. Alvin Brad
case is going to move slow, and there's gonna be
a lot of hurls there. Yes, it's not a friendly jurisdiction,
but the President's got some very good defenses. As it
relates to the Jacksmith's case. Jack Smith right now has
two major hurdles. First hurdle he has so will also

(11:03):
be heard at the end of April, is that another
a protester from January sixth challenged the statute, which is
two of the charges against President Trump as well on
the obstruction of an Act of Congress. Judge Kassas at
the US Court Apfields for the District of Columbia, we're
very good descent in that case, saying that the statute
was being interpreted over broadly it would impact First Amendment rights,

(11:26):
and we filed in that case as well, and I
think their court's going to reverse, so two of the
four charges go there. Then I think the judge in
the case involving the Jacksmiths prosecution on the issue of immunity,
if Trump's lawyer, now, we're going to argue it this
way and representing the parties we are. But if Trump's

(11:47):
lawyers go in there with a limited presidential immunity for
official acts, I believe he will win. They will reverse
the district court. The district court will be reversed on
two points. One that immunity fires the moment the president's
out of office. That doesn't even make sense because that
it's not really immunity. Let's think about that for a moment.
And then number two that it includes the out of

(12:11):
periphery of official acts. So then there'll be a determination
going back to the district court as to where the
allegations in the indictment acts that might be deemed official
they involved election integrity. The president is required in the
Constitution to faithfully execute called the faithful execution Clause execute
the Constitution of the United States, and he will be

(12:32):
able to argue that those were indeed official acts if
they were he's immune in that case.

Speaker 7 (12:37):
Is over with, all right?

Speaker 1 (12:40):
We continue now with Jay Sekulo, chief counsel for the
American Center for Law and Justice. Okay, now this is
very clear. I want people to fully understand.

Speaker 5 (12:48):
Now.

Speaker 1 (12:49):
I thought it was a mistake the argument that was
being made by the president's attorneys about absolute immunity. This
was the lower case oral arguments that were being made,
and it came up. But I believe the hypothetical came
from the judge and or one of the judges in
that case on that case that well, I does absolute
immunity mean that a president could order sealed Team six

(13:12):
to kill or assassinate their chief rival and political opponent,
Which was an obscene and absurd analogy on the face of.

Speaker 2 (13:21):
It, but easy question. The lawyer didn't and Shower didn't
use that answer. But the answer would be those would
not be deemed official acts, so those would not be
within the context of presidential immunity. Now, as it relates
to when the president could thus be charged with that,
you have the issue of sitting Presidents can be cannot
be charged while in office, so you've got that issue.

(13:42):
But that goes to timing of the proceeding. But to
say the president wouldn't be liable for that or it
would be immune forever for prosecution for ordering the assassinate
of a political opponent would be ridiculous, of.

Speaker 5 (13:53):
Course, totally.

Speaker 1 (13:54):
All right, so let me let me ask big picture,
with what you see going on in New York, DC,
Fulton County, Georgia, Florida. Do you see any of these
trials before the election?

Speaker 2 (14:07):
You know, maybe New York. I don't see Eileen Cannons
or the Jacksmith cases in Washington going before. So I
think maybe Eileen Cannon not likely, and I think Bragg.
I guess.

Speaker 1 (14:22):
Bragg but would likely happen. But of all the cases
out there now, the previous DA in New York Cyrus
Fans had passed on prosecuting Donald Trump on that issue,
and that goes back to twenty sixteen. Everybody knew about
Stormy Daniels in twenty sixteen, right.

Speaker 2 (14:37):
The FBC also passed over to the Department of Justice.

Speaker 1 (14:40):
All right, hang on, We'll hold Jay one quick question
on the timing and what we could expect because we
are only two hundred and thirty four days outside of
election day. Another question for Jay on the other side,
we'll come back. We'll continue Jay Seculo, he is the
chief counsel of American Center for Law and Justice. Then
we'll get to your calls next half hour as well.
Eight hundred nine four one sean if you want to

(15:01):
be a part of the program. If you're a homeowner
and you're like me, you protect your home. But when's
the last time you checked the title of your home?
If you never have, listen to this, A new report
on homeowners is now showing we have sixteen trillion dollars
in equity in our homes. That's why you need protection
from a scam that the FBI calls house stealing, where

(15:22):
the equity in all of our homes is the target.

Speaker 5 (15:25):
Now.

Speaker 1 (15:25):
Sadly, if nobody is watching the title to your home,
these scammers they transfer your title which is online, to
their name. They take out loans, and they use the
equity in your home and that's gone for you. Protect
the equity in your home from this despicable crime right now,
get their triple lock protection from our friends at home
title lock dot com. The first step is verify your
home title is still in your name. Sign up with

(15:47):
your address, go to home title lock dot com. Use
the promo code Sean Sean and they will send you
a complete title scan of your home's title and your
first thirty days of triple lock home title protection is free.
That's home title Com promo code Sean own title locke
dot com. More of the best of the Sean Hannity
Show coming up.

Speaker 8 (16:10):
Now that we made some money for our sponsors, let's
go back to making the liberals crazy. The handman is
back on the radio right now, all.

Speaker 1 (16:21):
Right, twenty five to the top of the hour, toll
free number. We'll get to some of your calls this
half hour, eight hundred and ninety four one seawn. If
you want to join us, all right, Jay Seculo has
agreed to stay a few moments with us. He is
the chief counsel for the American Center for Law ANDUSTICE.
I don't want to rush through the timeline here because
in two hundred and thirty four days, America I think
has a tipping point election in front of us. This

(16:46):
is a critical moment for the country, of my view,
and I don't think the I don't think the country
can survive four more years of Joe Biden and his
insane policies. That's my view, and the issue of these
legal cases and legal hurdles that Donald Trump is facing
a real We've got the case in New York, the
case in DC Bulton County, Georgia, light of today's news,

(17:09):
and then of course we have the case down in Florida. Okay,
let's walk through the timing of this what you see
coming in each case. Starting in New York, will work
our way down south to Washington, to Georgia to Florida.

Speaker 2 (17:23):
Okay, so in New York. In New York, you're on
a thirty day delay. So now you're talking mid April
as a start date. Will there be additional delays? My
guess is there probably will be. But I think that's
the one case that might go to trial before the election,
probably the least consequential, and it's certainly the weakest of
the cases. So that's why I think that one plays out.

(17:43):
The second case, if we go we're just going to
keep moving southern south, would be the Jack Smith indictments
on January sixth. There are two legal hurdles that Jack
Smith is facing in that case. One is the Supreme
Court granted sir ferrari on the immunity issue unity issue
is whether a president can be charged with a crime

(18:03):
once he leaves office for acts taking while he was president.
I think our position is that we're advocating in the
Supreme Court, is that it's a limited presidential immunity limited
to official acts, but that election integrity would certainly fall
within the faithful execution clause of the United States Constitution
and thus would be deemed an official act that would

(18:27):
go back down to the District Court for hearings and
probably appeals from there. So no way Jacksmith's case goes
to trial just on that issue, but then complicate it
one more. There is a case that they also took.
It's going to be argued probably the day before. The
other one is where the issue is the interpretation of
the interference with Congress. It's Fisher versus the United States,

(18:48):
and in that case, Judge Kassas at the DC Court
of Appeal said that the interpretation that the government was
giving to the interference with the official acts of Congress
was over brought and violated free speech. Everyone thought the
Supreme Court would deny review. They did not. I think
that's an indication that they're going to reverse. I think
they will reverse on that one as well. That knocks

(19:10):
out two of the four counts of the indictment. So
there's no way that case is going to trial before
the election. Then we got to go to Fulton County.
It doesn't go to tribal before the election. Shown there's
no way, but it's likely to go to trial at
this point. Now, if he wins the presidency under the
case I argued Vance versus Trump, they're not gonna be
able to do this while he's a sitting president because

(19:30):
that would interfere with this article two responsibilities. So if
he wins, that case likely goes away. Eileen Cannon is
a little bit of an unknown in the sense that
there was a motion to dismiss yesterday that she denied.
There are two others pending that documents case. I think
would be be a very close call whether she'd let
that case go, and it probably couldn't go until September

(19:52):
or actually, and that is awful close to the election,
so I think probably not.

Speaker 1 (19:56):
I got the indication that she was almost signaling to
the defense your real argument here probably a selective prosecution.

Speaker 5 (20:06):
I got that feeling.

Speaker 1 (20:07):
Now, if you go back to the Colorado case and
your brief was spot on in that case. And I
felt that the justices, even during oral arguments, had read
your brief because a lot of the questions they were
asking seemed to come directly out of it, and you
did file it before the oral arguments, if I'm not mistaken.

Speaker 2 (20:26):
Of course.

Speaker 1 (20:26):
And in that case, what was fascinating is I felt
for both sides, the Supreme Court justices were actually telling
the defense and the prosecution what their argument should be.
And it was fascinating to me because neither one wanted
to seed any ground and accept that they were giving

(20:47):
them the answer that they wanted to hear.

Speaker 5 (20:50):
I was kind of laughable to me.

Speaker 2 (20:52):
Yes, So the question will be there, there'll be a
whole series of pretrial motions. We're nowhere near that phase
right now. We had one. That's why I don't think
the case goes before. And she has raised concerns over
selective prosecution. President Biden treated one way, President Trump seated
somewhere else. And what's interesting about that is Biden had
no authority to declassify documents and President Trump had absolute
authority to declassify documents as president. So it's a you know,

(21:15):
it's ridiculous. I think it's a two tiered system of justice,
and also the reality is but that's why I don't
think it goes to trial before.

Speaker 1 (21:24):
Okay, So that means for Donald Trump from his perspective,
I don't really think the Stormy Daniel's case is going
to have much impact on people's thinking or voting, considering
they've known about it since prior to the twenty sixteen election.
So I think it's an old issue, and that would
mean that, Okay, Donald Trump then has an opportunity or
clear path to actually run for president without being distracted

(21:46):
and being in her courtroom half the time. All right, Jay,
I know you stayed longer than you thought. We appreciate it.

Speaker 2 (21:51):
Jake J.

Speaker 1 (21:52):
Secular, Chief Council, American Center for Law and Justice, Sir,
thank you. We appreciate you being with us. Eight hundred
nine four one, Shawn is a number if you want
to be a part of the program. Let's go to Ohio,
the Buckeye State. Let's say hi to Kyle. Kyle, you're
on the Sean Hannity Show. Happy Friday to.

Speaker 6 (22:06):
You, Happy Friday to you, Sean. Thank you, it's an
honor to be talking to you again. How are you today?

Speaker 5 (22:11):
I'm good, sir, fantastic.

Speaker 6 (22:13):
Hey, I'm calling you know on Wednesday, I know we
were all excited as Republicans, jumping up and down after
Trump had got those three charges in the eighteen total
people that were being convicted in Fulton County, those charges dropped.
And usually I'm a glass half full kind of guy,
and you know, I just took a second. I said,

(22:34):
you know what, I think this is the bone that
the judge is thrown to us Republicans saying, hey, I'm nonpartisan,
I'm up for reelection, like mister Secuelo just said, And
that's the only bone that we're gonna get thrown in this.
And I think today's judgment has shown that of you know,
we're not taking them off the case, both of them
as they should be taken off the case. But this
is Hey, what are the other you guys pick and

(22:55):
let's move forward.

Speaker 1 (22:57):
Well, I think you're right and your analysis is pretty
much in line with what Jay was arguing here. However,
I mean, the fruit of the poisonous tree, all the
evidence that was accumulated by this boyfriend of Fannie willis
now would be inadmissible, and that's going to be a

(23:17):
there's going to be a major hearing on that one
issue alone. I think this guy tried to split the baby,
if you will, not to not to use a disparaging term,
or just thread the needle, I guess would be a
better term. And I just think he came off acidine
and in his judgment. I think he just was wrong
in his conclusion on this, and he's almost kind of

(23:39):
acknowledging by doing it that he's wrong, But he did
it anyway. And that's the danger of ever being in
a judicial system of any kind.

Speaker 5 (23:47):
You just don't know.

Speaker 1 (23:47):
There are always other considerations that are on these judges' minds,
and you don't know what that is. I think also
the fact that he's a fairly new judge contributed to this.
I don't think this was a decisive wrong ruling that
was based on laws and ethics out of the state
of Georgia.

Speaker 5 (24:03):
I just don't I.

Speaker 6 (24:04):
Agree with you. I think that, you know, it's just
I think he's just trying to play politics with it,
and it's very unfortunate that the rule of law was
not at play here. This was just all for his
very in his next election.

Speaker 1 (24:17):
Welcome to Joe Biden's America because we're all living that
nightmare right now, which is the weaponization of justice. And
if we don't stop this, you're going to lose your country.
Because I would not want any Republican to ever weaponize
the Justice Department to go after Democrats. I wouldn't want it.
I wouldn't put up with it. I'd be their fiercest critic. Anyway,

(24:37):
appreciate the call, my friend. You have a great weekend.
All right, we'll take a quick break. We'll come back
more of your calls. Eight hundred and nine four one
Sean if you want to be a part of the program. Look,
I want to tell you about our friends at Henry
Repeating Arms. They manufacture a line of very high quality shotguns, revolvers,
and rifles that you're going to be very proud to own.
All made in America, all parts and materials from America.

(24:59):
But they use old world craftsmanship and they combine that
with cutting edge technology. The result is they deliver reliability,
accuracy you can trust in any situation. They're simple to use,
whether you're a novice or an experienced shooter, whether you're
a hunter, a sports shooter, maybe looking for home defense
or business defense. They have over two hundred models to

(25:20):
choose from. You will find the firearm that's just perfect
for you. They have new releases all year round. By
the way, you want to go back to their website
often HENRYUSA dot com Free catalog decals, list of dealers.
You're going to love this company.

Speaker 8 (25:39):
The final hour of the Sean Handity Show was up next.
Hang on for Shawn's conservative solutions.

Speaker 1 (25:48):
Hey Sean Hannity here. You know there's so much happening
in our country, from border issues to local crime. It
seems to be everywhere. Our friends at Burner offer a
less lethal option so you can protect yourself and rety
if any threat you may have to face. That's Burner
b y r NA. Now Burner fires powerful deterrence like
tear gas and kinetic AMMO, no background checks required, and

(26:10):
they can ship it right to your door. Bob Brayton
was at home when an intruder physically forced his way inside,
But luckily Bob had just received his Burner four days
prior to the incident, and he used it to backpedal
the man outside off his property. Now the Burners saved
two lives that day. Government agencies, police departments across the country.
They are now relying more than ever on Burner as

(26:33):
their go to less lethal option. You can join a
half a million other people that rely on Burner for protection.
Go to their website, check out their videos. B y
r NA dot com slash Hannity. You'll get a ten
percent discount. That's by r NA dot com slash Hannity.
Right back to our busy phones. Let's say hi to

(26:55):
professor somebody. Hello, professor, I can't read the.

Speaker 7 (26:59):
Name on my Hi Sean, this is Professor Tatz. How
are you? And God bless you and thank you and
Linda for everything that you do. I was really calling about,
first of all, Chuck Schumer, you know, and the Democrat
Party always talk about with President Trump that democracy is
on the ballot, when actually, if President Trump doesn't get

(27:22):
back in, we're going to lose our democracy because they're
the ones that are attacking not only our democracy but
our greatest ally, you know Israel. I mean for the
Senate Majority leader to get out right after the horrible
State of the Union speech and basically repeat the same
talking point that President Biden spoke about was just horrendous.

(27:45):
He doesn't speak for the Jewish people. He doesn't speak
for my mom, who's a ninety six year old Holocaust survivor,
or any of my aunts who are Holocaust survivors, or
any of the Jewish conservatives that are out there in America.
Jay Zeculo represents us. So when he said that in
his speech that he speaks for the majority, no he
does not. He doesn't speak for all of the Christian

(28:08):
people and people everywhere of goodwill who support Israel. When
he attacked Prime Minister Natanyahu and said that he is
the one who's blocking the seatsfire and the peace, no,
that would be Hamas. Hamas has turned down every single seasefire,
and even when they had a pause, all they did
was still lob missiles in Jerusalem and bombs with at checkpoints.

(28:32):
And I'm attacked now with Hesbela in the North. And
it's his party that supplied the billions of dollars to Iran,
that took off the sanctions that prime that President Trump
put on, that evolved in Iran to give the money
to Hamas to Hesbela, and for him to push a
two state solution, where's the what is it going to be?

Speaker 8 (28:52):
Hamas?

Speaker 1 (28:53):
Led Professor, you're a very smart woman, let me ask
you a question. Is I concur completely with your analysis here?
And this was political, and you know, the idea that
America does anything short of encouraging, assisting and helping Israel
defeat the terrorists that attacked them on October seventh, to

(29:17):
me is morally repugnant. We didn't expect people to tell
us what to do after nine to eleven. You extrapolate
out for population, and as I said many times, it's
about forty thousand Americans in a single day that would
have died. And now you're very smart, Why did Chuck
do this?

Speaker 7 (29:36):
I think he did it to play kate the left
because they're.

Speaker 1 (29:39):
Ring ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding.

Speaker 5 (29:42):
There you go.

Speaker 1 (29:43):
That is to play kate the radicals that now run
the Democratic Party.

Speaker 5 (29:47):
That's it.

Speaker 1 (29:48):
You nailed it. You get an eight plus. I'm going
to give you a gold star. Professor.

Speaker 7 (29:53):
Well, it's it's from listening to people like you, Sean.
You know, it rubs off on all of us. But
I think that there's I'm so afraid that they're going
to lose. They saw how well President Trump did in
Michigan and Minnesota and all these states that they supposedly
said they won last time around, but you know, they
saw Pennsylvania and they're just trying to basically. You know,

(30:15):
you could even see when when Biden was speaking at
the State of the Union, he was looking right at
the squad. He was aiming his remarks to them. He
didn't look like.

Speaker 5 (30:23):
Out mean, let me, let me tell you what precipitated.

Speaker 1 (30:26):
There's more than anything else the Michigan primary for Joe Biden.
We're eighteen point nine percent of Democratic voters chose anybody
but Joe.

Speaker 5 (30:37):
That is what this is about.

Speaker 1 (30:39):
That is pathetic, That is sad, it is what is
It is everything that is wrong in politics today.

Speaker 5 (30:47):
I can't say it any better.

Speaker 7 (30:49):
And they and they aren't. Speaker Johnson is trying to
get a standalone bill to support you know, Israel. I mean,
we've given billions to Ukraine and now he's talking about
like like they always want to do a package deal
where they throw in their other stuff that doesn't need
to be in there. And Speaker Johnson said, just a
standalone bill to Israel. They're fighting on two fronts. How

(31:11):
can you say you're an ally when we were hit
by nine to eleven, Israel came here with their ambulances
with their help. Now they need help, and it's like
it's words but actions.

Speaker 1 (31:22):
Let me give you how worse it gets, because it
was the same Joe Biden that's turned a blind eye
and allowed Iran and the Mullahs to get rich again
by selling oil in spite of the sanctions we put
on them. It was Joe Biden that was going to
pay six billion dollars in exchange for hostages as ransom.
It was Joe Biden that granted a sanctions waiver for

(31:43):
ten billion dollars in payments by Iraq. Joe Biden. Now
what they're trying to do is interfere in Israel's elections
and in the middle of a war, what they want
to They want bb Net and Yahoo who's out trying
to win the war and protect Israel for impurposey and
tell him how to run his war. It's disgusting. The

(32:04):
whole thing is repulsive. Every American should be outraged.

Speaker 7 (32:07):
And President Trump should make that distinction when he gets
out there at his next rally. It's never been so
clear about everything that he did on behalf of the
State of Israel, on behalf of people of not just
the Jewish people of all religions. Christianity is under attack.
We're all under attack. And President Trump put in executive

(32:27):
orders and lost.

Speaker 1 (32:29):
Donald Trump said to Israel, go win your war. That's
what he said. That was the right message. And what
we're doing here is you got the radicals that have
taken over the Democratic Party, the squad, et cetera, and
all the pressure that they've been using. Now you've got
Tuck Schumer. You know, it's repulsive, and they don't understand

(32:54):
the nature of evil in our time. It's too bad,
it's inexcusable. Pure Talk believes in American value use and
that freeze should mean exactly that free Well, switch to
pure Talk today and you'll get a free Samsung five
G smartphone, no four line requirement, no activation fees, just
a Samsung that's built to last, with a rugged screen,

(33:14):
quick charging battery, and top tiered data security.

Speaker 6 (33:17):
Now.

Speaker 1 (33:18):
Qualifying plans started just thirty five bucks a month for
unlimited talk, text, fifteen gigs of data, and of course
mobile hotspot. Now pure Talk will connect you to the
most dependable five G network in America for half the
price of Verizon AT and T and T Mobile. Average
family saves close to one thousand dollars a year, So
let Pure talks expert US customer service team help you

(33:38):
make the switch today.

Speaker 5 (33:39):
It's simple, it's fast, it's easy.

Speaker 1 (33:41):
Just di'le pound two fifty, say the keyword save now,
claim your eligibility for your free, brand new Samsung five
G smartphone and start saving on wireless today again. From
your phone dial pound two fifty, say the keyword save
now and switch to my cell phone company, Pure Talk