December 27, 2024 • 31 mins
Jeffrey Lord sits down with David Schoen to talk about the politics behind the many investigations and court actions against President Trump.
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):
Hello America, and welcome to the Sean Hannity Show. As
you have already instantly guessed, I am not Sean. Shawn
is enjoying the last of his much deserved twenty twenty
four end of year vacation, getting ready to get back,
and as we all head into the first year of
(00:20):
the Trump presidency. I am Jeffrey Lord, contributing editor the
American Spectator, a Newsmas TV contributor, and columnists for NewsBusters,
the Media Research Center's media watchdog. So let's let's get
right into it. If we can do that, We've got
some great guests coming up. We have Civil Liberties and
(00:43):
former Trump Attorney Council David Shoon. We have our friends
Matt and Mercy Schlapp from the American Conservative Union and SEAPAC.
And my friend in fellow Pennsylvania, Jeff Bartos, who has
run for the US Senate from Pennsylvania himself and spent
some significant time helping Dave McCormick win this Senate seat
(01:08):
in a unbelievable race against three term in common Democrat
Bob Casey, the namesake son of his late dad, Governor
Robert P. Casey. So we've got a good show going
for you here, and I just want to I want
to start with talking a little bit about what Sean
(01:28):
loves to talk about, the media mob. And one of
the things that has gotten me going here in the
last few days, I saw a you know, I read
the Washington Post, so you don't have to, and one
of the things I noticed was this column. It was
written two days published two days before Christmas in the Post,
(01:51):
and it was by a columnist of theirs named Eugene Robinson,
who I'm sure is a nice enough guy. But his
headline was, we cannot by Donald Trump's wish for a
compliant news media fight the President elect's attack on independent
journalism with the pro truth stands now in this step,
in this gem. Rather, he begins by saying this, anyone
(02:15):
who doubts the incoming Trump administration poses a serious threat
to independent journalism catch that phrase. Independent journalism has not
been paying attention, an attack, he says, is already underway,
and we journalists must now allow ourselves to be intimidated
unquote now, to which one can only reply with a
(02:36):
considerable burst of outright laughter. In fact, I would suggest
mister Robinson has it completely backwards. The Washington Post and
its allies in the so called quote unquote mainstream media
are anything about being seeking quote independent journalism quote unquote.
(02:59):
They are the central players in what is much more
accurately known as the liberal media. They themselves are the
compliant ones who have long ago abandoned independent journalism to
take sides one side, specifically in our political discussions of
the day. Some examples back before the twenty twenty four election.
(03:22):
In October, the New York Post headlined this more Washington
Post staffers resign over paper's failure to endorse Kamala Harris.
That story reported quote at least two more staffers have
penned their last story for the Washington Post, Don't you
love this? As employees resign in protest over the Broadsheets
(03:43):
decision not to endorse Kamala Harris for the twenty twenty
four presidential election. Editorial board members David Hoffman and Molly
Roberts have issued their resignations. Semiphore. Media journalist Max Tannai
reported on Monday the two longtime Washington Post staffers each
authored resignation letters slamming the paper's decision not to endorse Harris. Quote.
(04:09):
They said, I believe we face a very real threat
of autocracy in the candidacy of Donald Trump unquote, said Hoffman,
who took home the Pulitzer Prize last week and first
joined the paper in nineteen eighty two. And he was
writing this in his resignation letter, which of course was
posted on x. He went on, I find it untenable
and unconscionable that we have lost our voice at this
(04:31):
perilous moment quote unquote. And Ms Roberts, another longtime employee
of the Post who first joined the paper as a
student intern while studying at Harvard University, said she was
resigning due to the paper's refusal to endorse Harris. Quote.
I'm resigning from the Post editorial board because the imperative
(04:51):
to endorse Kamala Harris over Donald Trump is about as
morally clear as it gets, she said. She went on
to write in her resignation letter, worse, our silence is
exactly what Donald Trump wants for the media, for us
to keep quiet unquote. So right there, the veil gets
torn away from Robinson's supposed quote unquote independent journalism at
(05:14):
the Washington Post. Interestingly, the same situation arose across the
country at the Los Angeles Times. CBS News headlined that
story this way, Two more LA Times editorial board members
resign after the paper withholds a Harris endorsement, Unlike columnist
Robinson over there in the New York Post, where a
(05:37):
great columnist named Michael Goodwin has reported the reality of
the fanatical and decidedly non independent journalism of the day
from liberals, mister Goodwin headlined, the left wing media created
their own crisis and now have to pay the price
for repeatedly attacking Donald Trump. Goodwin wrote, even as defeated
(05:59):
Democrats try to decide who they are and what they
believe in their media handmaids, what they believe in their
media handmaids, face a crisis of their own. The come
up and against their politically driven bias, say again, bias
has arrived, and it's proving to be expensive in more
ways than one. ABC News and its chief Democratic operative
(06:23):
George Stephanopolis the rights fell into another trap. They meaning ABC,
put their agenda of defeating Trump ahead of the facts
and the law, and faced with depositions that likely would
have supported his claim of defamation, ABC caved in a settlement.
I still find this incredible in a settlement, the network
(06:44):
forked over sixteen million dollars for a Trump library and
his legal fees, and had to publicly say they quote
regret unquote Stephanopolos's false claims that Trump had been found
libel for rape in a civil case, says Goodwin Ouch.
The apology surely stung much more than the money. Unquote. Well,
(07:08):
I think that is safe to say. And you know,
it isn't just major newspapers that have the left wing
bias problem. As this is written, Fox News is headlining
something else quote TV Saturday Night Late Night, TV Saturday
Night Lives boring, anti Trump's gold routines go unheeded. Well expletive,
(07:31):
I can't say. On the radio, it happened again, they said.
Late night hosts melted down the night after Trump's twenty
twenty four victory after making him the butt of ninety
eight percent of their political jokes. The story goes on
to report on the antics of late night hosts Stephen Colbert,
(07:51):
Jimmy Kimmel, Seth Meyers, and others, including of course NBC's
Saturday Night Live, going all in on pro democratic and
anti Trump humor quote unquote well exactly, yet with all
of this out there, not to mention oh so much
more in the way of a decidedly far left leaning media.
(08:12):
There is the Washington Post, mister Robinson saying, quote and
when Trump takes office, the threat will escalate, perhaps dramatically unquote.
The real threat, let me just say this to American democracy,
is the central fact that Robinson simply ignores. That central
fact being that American journalism has overwhelmingly abandoned the idea
(08:37):
of so called independent journalism. And it should be noted
this problem has been around a long time before Donald
Trump came on the political seat. You read the memoirs
as I've done over the years of Republicans like nineteen
sixty four Republican nominee Senator Barry Goldwater, or former President
(08:57):
Richard Nixon, or the Bush's father and son and others
from the conservative side of the aisle, and there is
reference after reference to the liberal media and the hard
fact and that person's days on the active political scene
that they had to constantly deal with a far left
leaning media. You want an example, In August of twenty eighteen,
(09:19):
the Washington Examiners Paul Baddard took a look back and
headlined public's media hat fanned by Trump started with George H. W. Bush,
and Badard wrote former President George H. W. Bush. HW
Bush had it a lot better than President Trump. Economic
growth was humming at five percent, his polling was high,
(09:41):
and he was on duty in the Oval Office when
the Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet Union crumbled. But
the press attacked him, and as he headed to defeat
to Bill Clinton, Bush became the first president to publicly
rip on the media at campaign events, even handing out redhair.
I remember this that had the words quote annoy the media,
(10:05):
re elect Bush on them. Former Bush aid Mary Madeleine
is quoted by bedardas saying, quote, Madeleine, isn't surprised the
public has turned on the press again. The assaults on
freedom of speech religiosity, combined with the hypocrisy of a
ruling class exempting themselves from all the degenerative policies they
imposed on the electorate, created a combustible environment, and Trump
(10:29):
picked up the fire starter. She said in short, the
idea of being pushed in the Washington Post by one
of its own, mister Robinson, is completely upside down and backwards.
He ends by saying this we work for the people,
not the president. Whenever it's necessary, will remind the President
(10:49):
that he works for the people too, quote unquote. Well,
suffice to say, when large media organizations present themselves as
doing quote independent journalism quote, when in fact they are
about furthering a far left wing agenda, not independent journalism,
they are not quote working for the people unquote. The irony.
(11:12):
The American people have long gotten onto this game of
the media pretending to be doing independent journalism when in
fact they are doing the opposite. In October of twenty
twenty four, the Gallup Organization headlined this story, Americans trust
in media remains a trend low trust in political and
(11:33):
civic institution's highest for local and state governments, lowest for
media and Congress. The story reported, for the third consecutive
year more US adults have no trust at all in
the media. That would be thirty six percent than trusted
a great deal or fair amount. Another thirty three percent
of Americans express quote not very much confidence. There is
(11:56):
a reason for this, and when a Washington Post columnst
so so prominently denies the reality of that reason, media
credibility takes are suffer another hit. Shocking not and I'm
sure you have all seen the stories of MSNBC and
CNN losing their audience and having all kinds of problems
(12:20):
out there. And interestingly, I vividly remember a personal note
here when I was on CNN in the twenty sixteen
election campaign defending then candidate Trump. It drew, as I
began to understand, it drew considerable attention, and I was
(12:40):
told personally by the president of the network that my
appearance on the shows there was actually helping the ratings
at CNN. Ah, you can't make this stuff up. So
we're going to go on and we'll talk a little
bit more about this. One of the things that sort
of as a corollary I think to all of this,
(13:03):
and we're going to talk about this with David shown,
and that is the rise of law fair and weaponizing
the law to go after your political opponents. You know,
I always find it very interesting that when you are
accused by the left of whatever terrible thing they want
(13:24):
to accuse you of, in point of fact, they're the
ones that are guilty of it. They're the ones who
do this. And when they talk about Donald Trump wanting
to be or he is a fascist, or he's going
to do this or he's going to do that. And
then at the same time they talk about all of
(13:46):
the legal things that have been hurled in Donald Trump's direction.
Well who's doing that. We're getting We're getting some music here,
and we'll come back and talk that in just a
little bit. But wow, we we're done now. I guess
saying Merry Christmas, Happy fourth of July, no, happy New Year.
(14:07):
Welcome back to the Sean Hannity Show. And let me
start out the segment here by giving you the phone
number to call in. It's eight hundred nine four one
seven three two six, or in other words, eight hundred
ninety four to one Sean, and I hope you will
holler a little bit. You know, we've got some very
(14:29):
interesting times coming up President Trump. I always find this
comeback of his absolutely remarkable. And for those of you
out there, and I'm sure it's a lot of you
who know your American history, this kind of thing has
not happened since Grover Cleveland was President of the United States.
Groover Cleveland had been mayor of Buffalo, the governor of
(14:51):
New York. He was elected President of the United States
in eighteen forty four. I think it was I'm sorry.
Eighteen eighty four years later, he was defeated by the
son or grandson of President William Henry Harrison, Benjamin Harrison
by name uh and William Henry Harrison was famous in history.
(15:13):
He was the hero of the Battle of Tippy Canoe,
and the slogan of the campaign was Tippy Canoe and
Tyler too, John Tyler of Virginia Center from Virginia, I think,
being his running mate. Well, he got he got elected,
gave his inaugural address, caught a cold, and died in office.
So that was that was about it. So Grover Cleveland
(15:34):
eventually came back four years later. So President Trump is repeating,
and we will see what's going to happen here. So
let's say we've got a little break here and we
will go from there and welcome back to the Sean
Hannity Show. This is Jeffrey Lord filling in for Sean
and I want to start out by giving our call
in number here eight hundred and nine four one, seven,
(15:55):
three two six or eight hundred ninety four one. Sean.
I want to bring on now our guest David Shoan,
who is a former counsel to President Trump. A noted
civil liberties attorney, and David, before we start to talk,
I have a our friend, Jason has a clip here
(16:18):
of District Attorney Bragg in New York that he's going
to play for us, and that I think can help
us set up our discussion here. I know a lot
of people are wondering, whoever has this job? Are they
going to convict Donald Trump?
Speaker 2 (16:34):
Look, that is the number one issue. The Times calls
Brag a talented prosecutor who's successful suit of the Trump
Foundation could be invaluable experience.
Speaker 1 (16:45):
But the investigation he'll take over is.
Speaker 2 (16:48):
The chief Deputy Attorney General in New York State. I
oversaw some of the office's biggest cases from exposing a
legal behavior by the Trump Foundation. We know there's a
Trump investigation. I have investigated Trump and his children and
held them accountable for their misconduct with the Trump Foundation.
I also sued the Trump administration more than one hundred times.
We know that the DA investigating Trump. When I was
(17:11):
at the AG's office, I sued Trump over one hundred
times for his administration's misconduct and brought a case against
the Trump Foundation and held him accountable.
Speaker 1 (17:21):
All Right, David, welcome to the Sean Hannity Show, Thank
you very much. I got to add, I am not
a lawyer, but I listened to that kind of thing,
and I've watched the whole business unfold with all these
legal proceedings against President Trump, and it just seems to me,
(17:42):
as a non lawyer, that this is about a bunch
of insider inside legal system that doesn't like somebody, and
so whether it's the US Justice Department or the district
attorneys in New York City or Fulton County in Georgia,
they're going out to get them. What are your thoughts, Well.
Speaker 2 (18:05):
You're one hundred percent right, your instincts are right, whether
lawyer or not. That's been the nature of things for
the past few years that we've seen. I don't think
we've ever seen anything like it. First of all, there
are tremendous ethical violations in Bragg running for office on
a platform to get and target a particular citizen hadn't
been accused of anything. He promised to be the guy
(18:26):
to convict him. We saw that entire case unfold as
a complete mess, miscarriage of justice. Andrew Cuomo, who had
been the Attorney General New York and the governor of
New York, of course, and no Trump fan said that
had he been Attorney General, that case never would have
been brought. As you know the book out by Mark Pomerantz,
who had been appointed sort of special counsel to investigate it.
(18:47):
That office was against the prosecution until things changed politically,
so it became advantageous for Alvin Bragg in his view
at least to bring the case. The case of the travesty,
it will never hold up on appeal if it's not
dismissed outright. It should be dismissed, frankly, for a number
of reasons. Should be dismissed on presidential immunity ground that
should be dismissed on the elected the election that just happened,
(19:12):
those immunity, that kind of immunity. But even if it
weren't dismissed on a bill, it has to be reversed
for a number of constitutional infirmities, including never identifying the
target crime that made a felony in the case, giving
a jury the choice and then not having them identify
what crime it was. But there are many other errors
in the case. The judge never should have sat on
(19:34):
the case, clear conflict of interest. It's an abomination. And
that's just one example. But you know you mentioned the others.
The others have all have infirmities of their own.
Speaker 1 (19:45):
Yeah, I mean, it just it just astonishes me. And
as a layman, the question that I have is, how
do we hold how does the system hold these people
who were doing this, the lawyers that whatever, whether it's
Leticia James, the Attorney General of New York, or Alvin
Bragg or Fanny Willis or whatever, how do they get
(20:08):
to be held accountable for what they're doing or what
they have done.
Speaker 2 (20:13):
It's a real problem in a situation like this, especially
because you know, you think that ultimately the check on
an abusive power is the ballot box. But if you're
in the jurisdiction where the elected official is playing to
the worst instinct or human instincts. In that jurisdiction, they
don't like a particular person, they don't like someone because
(20:35):
of race or gender or some other reason, and they
have an electric electorate filled with that kind of viewpoint,
then the person can stay in office if you can
prove that you know their professional violations. For example, we
saw in the Georgia case with Fannie Willis. Now you
know the Georgia Court of Appeal has removed her from
(20:56):
the case as she had to be. That's because you know, she,
in her zeal to get President Trump and to advance
her interests in the interests of her lover, she really
overstepped the boundaries and created a clear appearance of impropriety
and impartiality. As we moved from the case, and hopefully
that case is going to be dismissed. But you're right,
(21:16):
you know, you've identified a real problem. What do we
do to hold them accountable outside of the ballot box?
Speaker 1 (21:23):
Is this something that on the federal level, Congress can
deal with, or in a state, a state legislature can
deal with to change the rules and all that. You know,
one of the things that we're old enough to remember
this is President Nixon's Watergate situation. And it has occurred
(21:43):
to me more than once that once that occurred, then
all bets were off and every president, every public official
was going to be targeted or could easily be targeted
by prosecutors, because well, if they got Richard Nixon to
resign and almost you know, other than Gerald Ford's pardon,
(22:06):
he might have had more problems. What else would have
happened there. I keep having the feeling that opened the
floodgates for all kinds of conduct here on the part
of the legal community, which is just not good.
Speaker 2 (22:19):
I think that's absolutely right. And you know, we saw
in twenty nineteen Jerry Nadler, Democratic Congressman from New York
made this comment in the context of the first Trump
impeachment proceeding, and he said, basically, we can't trust the voters,
can't wait for another election. We have to find some
other way to get rid of President Trump in effect,
and that's about an anti democratic a statement as I
(22:42):
can imagine from an elected official. You know, on the
one hand, with our separate branches of government, often we
like to see, you know, different parties having different branches
a sort of check on the other But in this case,
I think the President Trump provided the ultimate answer to
the unfair attacks. I think the American people have said
(23:02):
this many times now, are basically a fair minded people
in the majority.
Speaker 1 (23:07):
Yes, I think they got.
Speaker 2 (23:08):
I think that this law fare and the weaponization of
the criminal justice system was just too much for a
normal American person to take, and the backlash was seen
through the ballot box, and so ultimately he gets the
last ward. President Trump gets the last word in this
because now he has both Houses of Congress and the presidency,
and so if someone's going to try to abuse the
(23:29):
impeachment process again as we saw last time, they're going
to have a tough rota hoo with the Republican Party
in both houses.
Speaker 1 (23:39):
Yes, you know. Back in twenty fourteen, I interviewed then
private citizen Trump for The American Spectator, and one of
the things I said to him was that Republicans that
I had talked to, and mind you, this was after
the McCain and the Romney campaigns, was that they get
attacked by their opposition and so savagely, and yet they
(24:04):
don't fight back. And so I said to him, if
you run for president, will you fight back, to which
his response was something like, Oh, don't worry about that.
I will fight back. Do you think we're just we're
fortunate that we've got somebody here who is just not
going to let people get away with it as opposed
(24:25):
to just rolling over here. I mean, I can only
imagine the conversations that you that you and his staff
and friends have had with him. I saw him in Johnstown,
Pennsylvania during the campaign, and because I know him that
they asked if I would come out and talk to him.
I did, and I have to say, David, I was standing,
(24:46):
you know, like almost nose to nose with and I'm
sort of tilting my head a little bit to see
the condition of his ear where he'd been shot, and
he notices and and I said, are you all right?
He said, yeah, I'm doing great. I'm doing just great.
I'm fine, And then he went out on stage and
delivered this, you know, incredible speech that had thousands of
people all set to go. I have never seen anything
(25:10):
like this, and I worked for President Reagan and have
been around my share of people like this, but wow,
I just think he's amazing when he comes to this.
But it's also very helpful because otherwise they're going to
try and bring him down.
Speaker 2 (25:25):
Yeah. Well, I mean that was an iconic moment. I'm
sorry to say I didn't really recognize the gravity of
the situation at the time, and my initial reaction was
to trash talk him a little bit about you know,
I got a little graves wound on the ear sort
of thing. But he took it very well and gave
it back. But no, look, I think I personally think
(25:46):
that the toughness. First of all, it's real, but secondly,
I think it plays best in our foreign affairs quite frankly.
I mean, we've seen it already. We've just now, you know,
backing off publicly of some of our arch enemies. And
they know that he means business. And part of it
is the unpredictability. They don't know what he's going to do,
but they know what he's capable of doing if he
(26:07):
decides to in terms of sort of payback. You know. Look,
I hope that doesn't dominate the agenda. I think though
he learned a great lesson over these last four years
and the four years administration. Remember, they tried to sideline
him with this phony Mueller so called investigation that really
you know, it wasn't fair to the country. It handcuffed
the country, and then we got COVID, and so now
(26:28):
he gets to start anew Listen. He made the decision,
constant conscious decision at the beginning of his last administration
not to prosecute Hillary Clinton, despite the evidence of what
she did with her computer, you know, and so on.
You know, any criminal defense lawyer has had clients who
were indicted for a lot less in terms of obstruction
(26:48):
of justice and evidence tampering and that sort of thing.
But he made that decision. I don't know if he
would make that same decision today, and he was believing,
you know, he got a lot of pressure all of that.
Locker up, locker up.
Speaker 1 (27:00):
Yeah, I remember my share of rallies where I would
do that in twenty sixteen. It was pretty amazing. Well,
I guess. And one of the other things that I
think sort of comes from this as well is that
he's become a role model for foreign leaders. And you know,
trump Ism, if as you might call it, is surging
(27:24):
in places like you know, Europe and France and South
America and all of this kind of thing, which I
find very interesting. You know, it's democracy, but you have
to have a strong leader. And I think that they've
really responded. I don't think there's any accident that he
was invited to France just as president elect for the
anniversary or the celebration of the redoing of the Cathedral
(27:46):
of Notre Dame, and President Matron went out of his
way to treat him as if he were already the
sitting president. I think that's pretty amazing right there.
Speaker 2 (27:59):
Oh, you make very points with this, I think, but
we're seeing it, you know, kind of across the board
and the other The flip side of it is, in
each of these situations, the media, and I say the
media that's reflected in the New York Times, the Washington
Post plays out these doomsday scenarios. The world leaders hate them.
World leaders don't hate them. The first of all, they
love the guy on many levels, but they respect him,
(28:21):
they fear him in some ways, and they want to
be like him. They want to be, you know, that
kind of leader for many of them. But you know,
we see these doomsday reports. If he were to move
the Israeli of the United States embassy in Israel to Jerusalem,
it would be armageddon. Well, he did it because it
was the right thing to do. It's the thing the
law requires him to do, and he wanted to do it,
and it turned out to be the perfect decision. The
(28:43):
Abraham Accords then arose from that. Now we were told
those would be impossible, we could never make peace with
these countries, never have dialogue with them. But he went
out and did it. Now, you remember, when they Biden
administration came in, there was apparently a ban on using
the term Abraham Accords. I read it for any of
these things which they said he couldn't do, and he
did them all. So I'm hoping to see a lot
(29:05):
more positive things along those lines, you know, with this administration,
and it comes through strength, as.
Speaker 1 (29:10):
You say, yes, it does.
Speaker 2 (29:11):
You know.
Speaker 1 (29:12):
I can give you an anecdote from my Reagan days.
In August of nineteen eighty one, the federal air traffic
controllers threatened threatened to go on strike, which was against
the law, and the whole Washington Press Corps was, well,
you know, you can't do anything about this, and Reagan
came out and said, if you do this, I will
fire you. Well, they didn't believe him. He did it,
(29:33):
they fired, he fired him, and lo and behold. We
later found out that who paid real close attention to
this the Soviet Union.
Speaker 2 (29:42):
YEP.
Speaker 1 (29:43):
So well, thank you very much, David. This has been
a great conversation. I think the next four years are
going to be remarkable, and I'm looking forward to your
involvement with it, and the American people will be well
served if you were there. This is Jeffrey Lord sitting
in for Sean Hannity, and our calling number is eight
(30:04):
hundred and nine for one seven three two six. All Right,
this is Jeffrey Lord sitting in for our friend Sean Hannity,
and our number here is eight hundred and nine four
one seven three two six. We invite you to call in.
We have just about a minute here before we get
(30:25):
into our heartbreak, and I just thought i'd use that
even though we are a few days past Christmas, I
did go through for the American Spectator before Christmas a
list of conservative books for Christmas. And even though Christmas
may be over, you could buy it for somebody's New
Year's gift or what have you. So I'll probably mention
(30:47):
this a little bit later in the show here, but
we have some great books out there, new books in
twenty twenty four, and also some old books that are
the classics, like from Bill Buckley. Okay, so that is great,
and we will be back in a few minutes. That
This is Geoffrey Lord filling in for Sean Hannity, and
the number again is eight hundred ninety four one seven
(31:08):
three two six.
Hello America, and welcome to the Sean Hannity Show. As
you have already instantly guessed, I am not Sean. Shawn
is enjoying the last of his much deserved twenty twenty
four end of year vacation, getting ready to get back,
and as we all head into the first year of
(00:20):
the Trump presidency. I am Jeffrey Lord, contributing editor the
American Spectator, a Newsmas TV contributor, and columnists for NewsBusters,
the Media Research Center's media watchdog. So let's let's get
right into it. If we can do that, We've got
some great guests coming up. We have Civil Liberties and
(00:43):
former Trump Attorney Council David Shoon. We have our friends
Matt and Mercy Schlapp from the American Conservative Union and SEAPAC.
And my friend in fellow Pennsylvania, Jeff Bartos, who has
run for the US Senate from Pennsylvania himself and spent
some significant time helping Dave McCormick win this Senate seat
(01:08):
in a unbelievable race against three term in common Democrat
Bob Casey, the namesake son of his late dad, Governor
Robert P. Casey. So we've got a good show going
for you here, and I just want to I want
to start with talking a little bit about what Sean
(01:28):
loves to talk about, the media mob. And one of
the things that has gotten me going here in the
last few days, I saw a you know, I read
the Washington Post, so you don't have to, and one
of the things I noticed was this column. It was
written two days published two days before Christmas in the Post,
(01:51):
and it was by a columnist of theirs named Eugene Robinson,
who I'm sure is a nice enough guy. But his
headline was, we cannot by Donald Trump's wish for a
compliant news media fight the President elect's attack on independent
journalism with the pro truth stands now in this step,
in this gem. Rather, he begins by saying this, anyone
(02:15):
who doubts the incoming Trump administration poses a serious threat
to independent journalism catch that phrase. Independent journalism has not
been paying attention, an attack, he says, is already underway,
and we journalists must now allow ourselves to be intimidated
unquote now, to which one can only reply with a
(02:36):
considerable burst of outright laughter. In fact, I would suggest
mister Robinson has it completely backwards. The Washington Post and
its allies in the so called quote unquote mainstream media
are anything about being seeking quote independent journalism quote unquote.
(02:59):
They are the central players in what is much more
accurately known as the liberal media. They themselves are the
compliant ones who have long ago abandoned independent journalism to
take sides one side, specifically in our political discussions of
the day. Some examples back before the twenty twenty four election.
(03:22):
In October, the New York Post headlined this more Washington
Post staffers resign over paper's failure to endorse Kamala Harris.
That story reported quote at least two more staffers have
penned their last story for the Washington Post, Don't you
love this? As employees resign in protest over the Broadsheets
(03:43):
decision not to endorse Kamala Harris for the twenty twenty
four presidential election. Editorial board members David Hoffman and Molly
Roberts have issued their resignations. Semiphore. Media journalist Max Tannai
reported on Monday the two longtime Washington Post staffers each
authored resignation letters slamming the paper's decision not to endorse Harris. Quote.
(04:09):
They said, I believe we face a very real threat
of autocracy in the candidacy of Donald Trump unquote, said Hoffman,
who took home the Pulitzer Prize last week and first
joined the paper in nineteen eighty two. And he was
writing this in his resignation letter, which of course was
posted on x. He went on, I find it untenable
and unconscionable that we have lost our voice at this
(04:31):
perilous moment quote unquote. And Ms Roberts, another longtime employee
of the Post who first joined the paper as a
student intern while studying at Harvard University, said she was
resigning due to the paper's refusal to endorse Harris. Quote.
I'm resigning from the Post editorial board because the imperative
(04:51):
to endorse Kamala Harris over Donald Trump is about as
morally clear as it gets, she said. She went on
to write in her resignation letter, worse, our silence is
exactly what Donald Trump wants for the media, for us
to keep quiet unquote. So right there, the veil gets
torn away from Robinson's supposed quote unquote independent journalism at
(05:14):
the Washington Post. Interestingly, the same situation arose across the
country at the Los Angeles Times. CBS News headlined that
story this way, Two more LA Times editorial board members
resign after the paper withholds a Harris endorsement, Unlike columnist
Robinson over there in the New York Post, where a
(05:37):
great columnist named Michael Goodwin has reported the reality of
the fanatical and decidedly non independent journalism of the day
from liberals, mister Goodwin headlined, the left wing media created
their own crisis and now have to pay the price
for repeatedly attacking Donald Trump. Goodwin wrote, even as defeated
(05:59):
Democrats try to decide who they are and what they
believe in their media handmaids, what they believe in their
media handmaids, face a crisis of their own. The come
up and against their politically driven bias, say again, bias
has arrived, and it's proving to be expensive in more
ways than one. ABC News and its chief Democratic operative
(06:23):
George Stephanopolis the rights fell into another trap. They meaning ABC,
put their agenda of defeating Trump ahead of the facts
and the law, and faced with depositions that likely would
have supported his claim of defamation, ABC caved in a settlement.
I still find this incredible in a settlement, the network
(06:44):
forked over sixteen million dollars for a Trump library and
his legal fees, and had to publicly say they quote
regret unquote Stephanopolos's false claims that Trump had been found
libel for rape in a civil case, says Goodwin Ouch.
The apology surely stung much more than the money. Unquote. Well,
(07:08):
I think that is safe to say. And you know,
it isn't just major newspapers that have the left wing
bias problem. As this is written, Fox News is headlining
something else quote TV Saturday Night Late Night, TV Saturday
Night Lives boring, anti Trump's gold routines go unheeded. Well expletive,
(07:31):
I can't say. On the radio, it happened again, they said.
Late night hosts melted down the night after Trump's twenty
twenty four victory after making him the butt of ninety
eight percent of their political jokes. The story goes on
to report on the antics of late night hosts Stephen Colbert,
(07:51):
Jimmy Kimmel, Seth Meyers, and others, including of course NBC's
Saturday Night Live, going all in on pro democratic and
anti Trump humor quote unquote well exactly, yet with all
of this out there, not to mention oh so much
more in the way of a decidedly far left leaning media.
(08:12):
There is the Washington Post, mister Robinson saying, quote and
when Trump takes office, the threat will escalate, perhaps dramatically unquote.
The real threat, let me just say this to American democracy,
is the central fact that Robinson simply ignores. That central
fact being that American journalism has overwhelmingly abandoned the idea
(08:37):
of so called independent journalism. And it should be noted
this problem has been around a long time before Donald
Trump came on the political seat. You read the memoirs
as I've done over the years of Republicans like nineteen
sixty four Republican nominee Senator Barry Goldwater, or former President
(08:57):
Richard Nixon, or the Bush's father and son and others
from the conservative side of the aisle, and there is
reference after reference to the liberal media and the hard
fact and that person's days on the active political scene
that they had to constantly deal with a far left
leaning media. You want an example, In August of twenty eighteen,
(09:19):
the Washington Examiners Paul Baddard took a look back and
headlined public's media hat fanned by Trump started with George H. W. Bush,
and Badard wrote former President George H. W. Bush. HW
Bush had it a lot better than President Trump. Economic
growth was humming at five percent, his polling was high,
(09:41):
and he was on duty in the Oval Office when
the Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet Union crumbled. But
the press attacked him, and as he headed to defeat
to Bill Clinton, Bush became the first president to publicly
rip on the media at campaign events, even handing out redhair.
I remember this that had the words quote annoy the media,
(10:05):
re elect Bush on them. Former Bush aid Mary Madeleine
is quoted by bedardas saying, quote, Madeleine, isn't surprised the
public has turned on the press again. The assaults on
freedom of speech religiosity, combined with the hypocrisy of a
ruling class exempting themselves from all the degenerative policies they
imposed on the electorate, created a combustible environment, and Trump
(10:29):
picked up the fire starter. She said in short, the
idea of being pushed in the Washington Post by one
of its own, mister Robinson, is completely upside down and backwards.
He ends by saying this we work for the people,
not the president. Whenever it's necessary, will remind the President
(10:49):
that he works for the people too, quote unquote. Well,
suffice to say, when large media organizations present themselves as
doing quote independent journalism quote, when in fact they are
about furthering a far left wing agenda, not independent journalism,
they are not quote working for the people unquote. The irony.
(11:12):
The American people have long gotten onto this game of
the media pretending to be doing independent journalism when in
fact they are doing the opposite. In October of twenty
twenty four, the Gallup Organization headlined this story, Americans trust
in media remains a trend low trust in political and
(11:33):
civic institution's highest for local and state governments, lowest for
media and Congress. The story reported, for the third consecutive
year more US adults have no trust at all in
the media. That would be thirty six percent than trusted
a great deal or fair amount. Another thirty three percent
of Americans express quote not very much confidence. There is
(11:56):
a reason for this, and when a Washington Post columnst
so so prominently denies the reality of that reason, media
credibility takes are suffer another hit. Shocking not and I'm
sure you have all seen the stories of MSNBC and
CNN losing their audience and having all kinds of problems
(12:20):
out there. And interestingly, I vividly remember a personal note
here when I was on CNN in the twenty sixteen
election campaign defending then candidate Trump. It drew, as I
began to understand, it drew considerable attention, and I was
(12:40):
told personally by the president of the network that my
appearance on the shows there was actually helping the ratings
at CNN. Ah, you can't make this stuff up. So
we're going to go on and we'll talk a little
bit more about this. One of the things that sort
of as a corollary I think to all of this,
(13:03):
and we're going to talk about this with David shown,
and that is the rise of law fair and weaponizing
the law to go after your political opponents. You know,
I always find it very interesting that when you are
accused by the left of whatever terrible thing they want
(13:24):
to accuse you of, in point of fact, they're the
ones that are guilty of it. They're the ones who
do this. And when they talk about Donald Trump wanting
to be or he is a fascist, or he's going
to do this or he's going to do that. And
then at the same time they talk about all of
(13:46):
the legal things that have been hurled in Donald Trump's direction.
Well who's doing that. We're getting We're getting some music here,
and we'll come back and talk that in just a
little bit. But wow, we we're done now. I guess
saying Merry Christmas, Happy fourth of July, no, happy New Year.
(14:07):
Welcome back to the Sean Hannity Show. And let me
start out the segment here by giving you the phone
number to call in. It's eight hundred nine four one
seven three two six, or in other words, eight hundred
ninety four to one Sean, and I hope you will
holler a little bit. You know, we've got some very
(14:29):
interesting times coming up President Trump. I always find this
comeback of his absolutely remarkable. And for those of you
out there, and I'm sure it's a lot of you
who know your American history, this kind of thing has
not happened since Grover Cleveland was President of the United States.
Groover Cleveland had been mayor of Buffalo, the governor of
(14:51):
New York. He was elected President of the United States
in eighteen forty four. I think it was I'm sorry.
Eighteen eighty four years later, he was defeated by the
son or grandson of President William Henry Harrison, Benjamin Harrison
by name uh and William Henry Harrison was famous in history.
(15:13):
He was the hero of the Battle of Tippy Canoe,
and the slogan of the campaign was Tippy Canoe and
Tyler too, John Tyler of Virginia Center from Virginia, I think,
being his running mate. Well, he got he got elected,
gave his inaugural address, caught a cold, and died in office.
So that was that was about it. So Grover Cleveland
(15:34):
eventually came back four years later. So President Trump is repeating,
and we will see what's going to happen here. So
let's say we've got a little break here and we
will go from there and welcome back to the Sean
Hannity Show. This is Jeffrey Lord filling in for Sean
and I want to start out by giving our call
in number here eight hundred and nine four one, seven,
(15:55):
three two six or eight hundred ninety four one. Sean.
I want to bring on now our guest David Shoan,
who is a former counsel to President Trump. A noted
civil liberties attorney, and David, before we start to talk,
I have a our friend, Jason has a clip here
(16:18):
of District Attorney Bragg in New York that he's going
to play for us, and that I think can help
us set up our discussion here. I know a lot
of people are wondering, whoever has this job? Are they
going to convict Donald Trump?
Speaker 2 (16:34):
Look, that is the number one issue. The Times calls
Brag a talented prosecutor who's successful suit of the Trump
Foundation could be invaluable experience.
Speaker 1 (16:45):
But the investigation he'll take over is.
Speaker 2 (16:48):
The chief Deputy Attorney General in New York State. I
oversaw some of the office's biggest cases from exposing a
legal behavior by the Trump Foundation. We know there's a
Trump investigation. I have investigated Trump and his children and
held them accountable for their misconduct with the Trump Foundation.
I also sued the Trump administration more than one hundred times.
We know that the DA investigating Trump. When I was
(17:11):
at the AG's office, I sued Trump over one hundred
times for his administration's misconduct and brought a case against
the Trump Foundation and held him accountable.
Speaker 1 (17:21):
All Right, David, welcome to the Sean Hannity Show, Thank
you very much. I got to add, I am not
a lawyer, but I listened to that kind of thing,
and I've watched the whole business unfold with all these
legal proceedings against President Trump, and it just seems to me,
(17:42):
as a non lawyer, that this is about a bunch
of insider inside legal system that doesn't like somebody, and
so whether it's the US Justice Department or the district
attorneys in New York City or Fulton County in Georgia,
they're going out to get them. What are your thoughts, Well.
Speaker 2 (18:05):
You're one hundred percent right, your instincts are right, whether
lawyer or not. That's been the nature of things for
the past few years that we've seen. I don't think
we've ever seen anything like it. First of all, there
are tremendous ethical violations in Bragg running for office on
a platform to get and target a particular citizen hadn't
been accused of anything. He promised to be the guy
(18:26):
to convict him. We saw that entire case unfold as
a complete mess, miscarriage of justice. Andrew Cuomo, who had
been the Attorney General New York and the governor of
New York, of course, and no Trump fan said that
had he been Attorney General, that case never would have
been brought. As you know the book out by Mark Pomerantz,
who had been appointed sort of special counsel to investigate it.
(18:47):
That office was against the prosecution until things changed politically,
so it became advantageous for Alvin Bragg in his view
at least to bring the case. The case of the travesty,
it will never hold up on appeal if it's not
dismissed outright. It should be dismissed, frankly, for a number
of reasons. Should be dismissed on presidential immunity ground that
should be dismissed on the elected the election that just happened,
(19:12):
those immunity, that kind of immunity. But even if it
weren't dismissed on a bill, it has to be reversed
for a number of constitutional infirmities, including never identifying the
target crime that made a felony in the case, giving
a jury the choice and then not having them identify
what crime it was. But there are many other errors
in the case. The judge never should have sat on
(19:34):
the case, clear conflict of interest. It's an abomination. And
that's just one example. But you know you mentioned the others.
The others have all have infirmities of their own.
Speaker 1 (19:45):
Yeah, I mean, it just it just astonishes me. And
as a layman, the question that I have is, how
do we hold how does the system hold these people
who were doing this, the lawyers that whatever, whether it's
Leticia James, the Attorney General of New York, or Alvin
Bragg or Fanny Willis or whatever, how do they get
(20:08):
to be held accountable for what they're doing or what
they have done.
Speaker 2 (20:13):
It's a real problem in a situation like this, especially
because you know, you think that ultimately the check on
an abusive power is the ballot box. But if you're
in the jurisdiction where the elected official is playing to
the worst instinct or human instincts. In that jurisdiction, they
don't like a particular person, they don't like someone because
(20:35):
of race or gender or some other reason, and they
have an electric electorate filled with that kind of viewpoint,
then the person can stay in office if you can
prove that you know their professional violations. For example, we
saw in the Georgia case with Fannie Willis. Now you
know the Georgia Court of Appeal has removed her from
(20:56):
the case as she had to be. That's because you know, she,
in her zeal to get President Trump and to advance
her interests in the interests of her lover, she really
overstepped the boundaries and created a clear appearance of impropriety
and impartiality. As we moved from the case, and hopefully
that case is going to be dismissed. But you're right,
(21:16):
you know, you've identified a real problem. What do we
do to hold them accountable outside of the ballot box?
Speaker 1 (21:23):
Is this something that on the federal level, Congress can
deal with, or in a state, a state legislature can
deal with to change the rules and all that. You know,
one of the things that we're old enough to remember
this is President Nixon's Watergate situation. And it has occurred
(21:43):
to me more than once that once that occurred, then
all bets were off and every president, every public official
was going to be targeted or could easily be targeted
by prosecutors, because well, if they got Richard Nixon to
resign and almost you know, other than Gerald Ford's pardon,
(22:06):
he might have had more problems. What else would have
happened there. I keep having the feeling that opened the
floodgates for all kinds of conduct here on the part
of the legal community, which is just not good.
Speaker 2 (22:19):
I think that's absolutely right. And you know, we saw
in twenty nineteen Jerry Nadler, Democratic Congressman from New York
made this comment in the context of the first Trump
impeachment proceeding, and he said, basically, we can't trust the voters,
can't wait for another election. We have to find some
other way to get rid of President Trump in effect,
and that's about an anti democratic a statement as I
(22:42):
can imagine from an elected official. You know, on the
one hand, with our separate branches of government, often we
like to see, you know, different parties having different branches
a sort of check on the other But in this case,
I think the President Trump provided the ultimate answer to
the unfair attacks. I think the American people have said
(23:02):
this many times now, are basically a fair minded people
in the majority.
Speaker 1 (23:07):
Yes, I think they got.
Speaker 2 (23:08):
I think that this law fare and the weaponization of
the criminal justice system was just too much for a
normal American person to take, and the backlash was seen
through the ballot box, and so ultimately he gets the
last ward. President Trump gets the last word in this
because now he has both Houses of Congress and the presidency,
and so if someone's going to try to abuse the
(23:29):
impeachment process again as we saw last time, they're going
to have a tough rota hoo with the Republican Party
in both houses.
Speaker 1 (23:39):
Yes, you know. Back in twenty fourteen, I interviewed then
private citizen Trump for The American Spectator, and one of
the things I said to him was that Republicans that
I had talked to, and mind you, this was after
the McCain and the Romney campaigns, was that they get
attacked by their opposition and so savagely, and yet they
(24:04):
don't fight back. And so I said to him, if
you run for president, will you fight back, to which
his response was something like, Oh, don't worry about that.
I will fight back. Do you think we're just we're
fortunate that we've got somebody here who is just not
going to let people get away with it as opposed
(24:25):
to just rolling over here. I mean, I can only
imagine the conversations that you that you and his staff
and friends have had with him. I saw him in Johnstown,
Pennsylvania during the campaign, and because I know him that
they asked if I would come out and talk to him.
I did, and I have to say, David, I was standing,
(24:46):
you know, like almost nose to nose with and I'm
sort of tilting my head a little bit to see
the condition of his ear where he'd been shot, and
he notices and and I said, are you all right?
He said, yeah, I'm doing great. I'm doing just great.
I'm fine, And then he went out on stage and
delivered this, you know, incredible speech that had thousands of
people all set to go. I have never seen anything
(25:10):
like this, and I worked for President Reagan and have
been around my share of people like this, but wow,
I just think he's amazing when he comes to this.
But it's also very helpful because otherwise they're going to
try and bring him down.
Speaker 2 (25:25):
Yeah. Well, I mean that was an iconic moment. I'm
sorry to say I didn't really recognize the gravity of
the situation at the time, and my initial reaction was
to trash talk him a little bit about you know,
I got a little graves wound on the ear sort
of thing. But he took it very well and gave
it back. But no, look, I think I personally think
(25:46):
that the toughness. First of all, it's real, but secondly,
I think it plays best in our foreign affairs quite frankly.
I mean, we've seen it already. We've just now, you know,
backing off publicly of some of our arch enemies. And
they know that he means business. And part of it
is the unpredictability. They don't know what he's going to do,
but they know what he's capable of doing if he
(26:07):
decides to in terms of sort of payback. You know. Look,
I hope that doesn't dominate the agenda. I think though
he learned a great lesson over these last four years
and the four years administration. Remember, they tried to sideline
him with this phony Mueller so called investigation that really
you know, it wasn't fair to the country. It handcuffed
the country, and then we got COVID, and so now
(26:28):
he gets to start anew Listen. He made the decision,
constant conscious decision at the beginning of his last administration
not to prosecute Hillary Clinton, despite the evidence of what
she did with her computer, you know, and so on.
You know, any criminal defense lawyer has had clients who
were indicted for a lot less in terms of obstruction
(26:48):
of justice and evidence tampering and that sort of thing.
But he made that decision. I don't know if he
would make that same decision today, and he was believing,
you know, he got a lot of pressure all of that.
Locker up, locker up.
Speaker 1 (27:00):
Yeah, I remember my share of rallies where I would
do that in twenty sixteen. It was pretty amazing. Well,
I guess. And one of the other things that I
think sort of comes from this as well is that
he's become a role model for foreign leaders. And you know,
trump Ism, if as you might call it, is surging
(27:24):
in places like you know, Europe and France and South
America and all of this kind of thing, which I
find very interesting. You know, it's democracy, but you have
to have a strong leader. And I think that they've
really responded. I don't think there's any accident that he
was invited to France just as president elect for the
anniversary or the celebration of the redoing of the Cathedral
(27:46):
of Notre Dame, and President Matron went out of his
way to treat him as if he were already the
sitting president. I think that's pretty amazing right there.
Speaker 2 (27:59):
Oh, you make very points with this, I think, but
we're seeing it, you know, kind of across the board
and the other The flip side of it is, in
each of these situations, the media, and I say the
media that's reflected in the New York Times, the Washington
Post plays out these doomsday scenarios. The world leaders hate them.
World leaders don't hate them. The first of all, they
love the guy on many levels, but they respect him,
(28:21):
they fear him in some ways, and they want to
be like him. They want to be, you know, that
kind of leader for many of them. But you know,
we see these doomsday reports. If he were to move
the Israeli of the United States embassy in Israel to Jerusalem,
it would be armageddon. Well, he did it because it
was the right thing to do. It's the thing the
law requires him to do, and he wanted to do it,
and it turned out to be the perfect decision. The
(28:43):
Abraham Accords then arose from that. Now we were told
those would be impossible, we could never make peace with
these countries, never have dialogue with them. But he went
out and did it. Now, you remember, when they Biden
administration came in, there was apparently a ban on using
the term Abraham Accords. I read it for any of
these things which they said he couldn't do, and he
did them all. So I'm hoping to see a lot
(29:05):
more positive things along those lines, you know, with this administration,
and it comes through strength, as.
Speaker 1 (29:10):
You say, yes, it does.
Speaker 2 (29:11):
You know.
Speaker 1 (29:12):
I can give you an anecdote from my Reagan days.
In August of nineteen eighty one, the federal air traffic
controllers threatened threatened to go on strike, which was against
the law, and the whole Washington Press Corps was, well,
you know, you can't do anything about this, and Reagan
came out and said, if you do this, I will
fire you. Well, they didn't believe him. He did it,
(29:33):
they fired, he fired him, and lo and behold. We
later found out that who paid real close attention to
this the Soviet Union.
Speaker 2 (29:42):
YEP.
Speaker 1 (29:43):
So well, thank you very much, David. This has been
a great conversation. I think the next four years are
going to be remarkable, and I'm looking forward to your
involvement with it, and the American people will be well
served if you were there. This is Jeffrey Lord sitting
in for Sean Hannity, and our calling number is eight
(30:04):
hundred and nine for one seven three two six. All Right,
this is Jeffrey Lord sitting in for our friend Sean Hannity,
and our number here is eight hundred and nine four
one seven three two six. We invite you to call in.
We have just about a minute here before we get
(30:25):
into our heartbreak, and I just thought i'd use that
even though we are a few days past Christmas, I
did go through for the American Spectator before Christmas a
list of conservative books for Christmas. And even though Christmas
may be over, you could buy it for somebody's New
Year's gift or what have you. So I'll probably mention
(30:47):
this a little bit later in the show here, but
we have some great books out there, new books in
twenty twenty four, and also some old books that are
the classics, like from Bill Buckley. Okay, so that is great,
and we will be back in a few minutes. That
This is Geoffrey Lord filling in for Sean Hannity, and
the number again is eight hundred ninety four one seven
(31:08):
three two six.
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.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
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.