July 16, 2024 • 29 mins
Tim Schmidt, CEO & Co-Founder of Delta Defense , one of the sponsors of our show, talks about the need to protect yourself in these increasingly violent times.
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):
Thanks got chat an hour two Sean Hannity Show, eight
hundred and nine four one Sean, if you want to
be a part of the program. The other breaking news
today as we continue from Milwaukee we're in Wisconsin is
Senator Menendez New Jersey guilty in his well corruption case,
and now calls are getting loud for him to resign.
(00:22):
He was already planning on only running as an independent,
not as a Democrat in New Jersey. And it's getting
more interesting by the minute. Anyway, here to talk about
that and a lot more. He wrote this great column yesterday.
We had not spent enough time on Eileen Cannon's historic,
frankly ruling as it relates to the Trump document case
(00:43):
down in Florida and the outright dismissal of Jack Smith
due to the appointment clause of our Constitution. Our very
good friend Greg Jared is with us, Fox News contributor
and friend of the program, legal analyst and best selling author, Sir, welcome.
Speaker 2 (00:58):
Back to be with you. I'm relieved that a Manhattan
jury did the right thing. It was an easy choice.
Bob Menendez was dead bank guilty of bribery and corruption
and extortion conspiracy. I mean eighteen different counts, guilty on
all of them. I mean, the evidence was so compelling
(01:19):
and overwhelming, invasual Sean gold bars, tens of them.
Speaker 3 (01:26):
I love that. I don't know what I like more.
Speaker 1 (01:28):
The gold bars are the Mercedes, I mean pretty wow.
Everyone has gold bars that they didn't pay for in
their house and inside of their soup pocket, right.
Speaker 2 (01:37):
Yeah, and the cash stuffed in shoes and yeah, pockets everywhere,
and a huge bag of cash. And you know, he
tried to pull a Fannie Willis. You remember when she said, oh, yeah,
I only deal with cash. That's how I reimburse my lover,
because it's a cultural thing. So Menendez tried to pull
(01:59):
the ind Oh that's a Cuban thing to you know,
keep your money in cash. Nonsense, Jersey are not stupid.
And you know, there was so much other evidence that
he was demanding benefits in cash and gold bars in
exchange for taking official action as a powerful member of
(02:20):
the US Senate chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. This
is so typical of Menendez. And you know, the normal person,
when you get away with it the first time with
an acquittal, you know they knock it off. No, it
only in bolden and incentivized Goldbar Bob to do it
(02:40):
even more and do it blatantly. He thought he was
above the law.
Speaker 3 (02:45):
It really did. I thought it was a slam dung too.
Speaker 1 (02:48):
And however, he had previously been charged and gotten away
with it. In that case, Abby Lowell represented him. I
think he was part of the defense, but he was
not the lead council.
Speaker 3 (02:58):
Was he.
Speaker 2 (02:59):
No, he wasn't. And you know, I you know, I
sort of know Abby, known him for years.
Speaker 1 (03:05):
Each Abby's a real attorney. I mean, you can't say anything.
I mean, he's good at what he does, period, but
he him is. His involvement probably helped him. Not leading
it didn't help.
Speaker 2 (03:16):
Yeah, But even Abby, as good as he is, could
not pull the rabbit out of the hat on this one.
It really was a slam dug. So Menendez is finished.
You know, he should resign or be expelled immediately. Of course,
you know, he lost in the primary. He's going to
(03:38):
end up behind bars, probably for the rest of his life.
He's seventy years old.
Speaker 3 (03:43):
Unbelievable.
Speaker 1 (03:44):
Let me go yesterday on this program, I did quote
your article that you put out on Fox news dot Com,
which was amazing, actually a great analysis. Thank you of
Judge Eileen Cannon ruling that the appointment of the Special
Council was in fact unconstitution and you know, you put
this has come up, for example, even in the Moler case.
(04:05):
We've had other special counsels before. And this really goes
down to the appointments clause in our Constitution, which is
very clear, which provides for the exclusive means for selecting
all officers of the US and they must be appointed
by the President and confirmed by the Senate. And that
(04:26):
didn't happen here. And now this should probably impact Although
I wouldn't expect the judge in DC to actually follow
the Constitution. That's my own personal view, but she should
be following that case, this case, and following the lead
of this Florida judge, who I think very courageously made
the right constitutional and legal decision.
Speaker 2 (04:46):
Yeah, Cannon's ruling in Florida is not binding on the
federal judge in DC, Tanya Chutkin. He's already made it
abundantly clear she's not going to toss the case on
the same grounds. But that prosecution Sean has already stalled
by the two recent Supreme Court decisions over the immunity
(05:07):
issue the improper use of an obstruction statute. So she
may issue a ruling exactly the opposite of Canon, which
means it probably then goes to the US Supreme Court,
because when you have two competing decisions in different jurisdictions
(05:28):
over an important issue like this, inevitably it winds its
way to the US Supreme Court, where I think it will.
Canon's decision will receive a friendly greeting from the likes
of Clarence Thomas and Samuel Leto and others on the Court.
Speaker 1 (05:47):
You know, and you point it out in your piece
that while special councils have operated without specific legislative consent,
when you go back, you look at Patrick Fitzgerald, he
went after Scooter Libby and that was during the Bush administration.
Or Robert Muller and this appointment's clause came up. I
remember asking you about it at the time. Or John
(06:09):
Durham or David Weiss or Robert Hurt, for example, all
of which had been presidentially appointed and Senate approved in
prior positions. Now I don't I think it's got to
be specific to a particular case. I would make that
argument myself. You know, the law better than I do.
But in the case of Jack Smith, he never had
(06:29):
such an appointment as these other people did.
Speaker 2 (06:32):
It's true, he was a private citizen, you know, for
a nano second. He was an acting US attorney, just
a fill in for a couple of months, but he
was never appointed by the President for any official position.
And you know, he was never sent it confirmed. And therein,
(06:54):
you know, was the difficulty for Jack Smith and Merrick Garland. Look,
Merrick Garland Pitt Smith knowing that Smith would never be
senator proved because he had this shameful, notorious track record
of manipulating the law in other cases to bring politically
(07:14):
driven prosecutions. That's exactly the kind of guy that Merrick
Garland wanted. So he had a quandary, here, what am
I going to do? Well, I'll circumvent the Constitution to
target Trump with manufactured charges, and I will without authority,
named Smith as my ruthless mob enforcer, which is exactly
(07:38):
what happened. But you know, they got caught by a
judge who scrutinized what both of them did and said,
under the Constitution, you can't do this.
Speaker 1 (07:50):
Yeah, amazing, you talk about our framers. They don't give
enough attention, in my view, to our framers and the
role that they gave Congress and appointment role of principal
and inferior officers.
Speaker 3 (08:04):
And you rightly point.
Speaker 1 (08:05):
Out a cap that role can't be usurped by the
executive branch, and the DOJ falls under the executive branch.
This is Joe Biden's Department of Justice, which we both
believe is weaponized.
Speaker 4 (08:21):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (08:21):
Absolutely, and there is a Supreme Court support for that.
You'll find it in Cannon's opinion. She the Edmunds case,
the Buckley case, and she quotes from them that the
appointment's clause is not a matter of etiquette protocol. It's
(08:41):
a significant structural safeguard of the Constitution and you've got
to follow it. So, you know, I think this was
a ninety three page, well reason, beautifully written decision. But
she was aided in great part, and credit is due
(09:02):
to Edwin Mee Send Michael mckazy, two distinguished former US
Attorneys General who wrote an amicus brief Friend of the
Court and laid out exactly the position that Judge Cannon
eventually adopted.
Speaker 1 (09:18):
All right, quick, Frank, we'll come right back. We'll continue
eight hundred and ninety four one. Sean, if you want
to be a part of the program, more with Greg
Jarrett than your call straight ahead as we continue.
Speaker 3 (09:28):
All right, we continue with Greg Jarrett.
Speaker 1 (09:29):
Then your calls coming up straight ahead as we continue
from Milwaukee.
Speaker 3 (09:32):
We are in Wisconsin.
Speaker 1 (09:34):
Let me ask you, let's go back to the Supreme
Court decision as it relates to the president and official duties,
and let's apply this to the delayed sentencing. Now in
the case of the thirty four counts of New York
and Judge Mershawn, because evidence introduced in that case leading
(09:54):
to the quote thirty four convictions, we have been very
critical of the whole process. But I want to specifically
deal with the idea that evidence in that case that
the jury considered was evidence from the time in which
Donald Trump was president. That to me means that that
entire case, those decisions, it needs to be vacated.
Speaker 3 (10:17):
And I don't think Judge Mershawn's going to do it.
Speaker 1 (10:21):
I mean, he has shown himself to be abusively biased
towards Donald Trump.
Speaker 4 (10:25):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (10:26):
Absolutely, there is a motion pending. It was filed literally
days ago. I read it over and over again. It
makes a persuasive, compelling argument that because so much of
the evidence in testimony was arguably covered by official acts
(10:49):
and therefore immune, there is no choice but the trial
court judge should vacate the verdicts and dismiss the cases.
Speaker 1 (11:00):
Assuming he doesn't and sentencing moves forward in September, I
forget the date.
Speaker 3 (11:04):
I think it was September twenty something, whatever, it was.
Speaker 1 (11:07):
Fifth, Okay, So assuming that the sentencing moves forward, then
there will be an instant appeals appeal on that issue.
But I mean, this judge could remand Donald Trump to
jail in that moment.
Speaker 2 (11:22):
The New York law does not support jail time for this.
Speaker 3 (11:29):
These And tell me with this judge why that would matter.
Speaker 2 (11:33):
Yeah, I mean, your point is an excellent one. Is
always he doesn't care. Look, I think what will happen
is the judge has to rule before the sentencing on
the pending motion to dismiss the case for the reasons
you and I just discussed. I guarantee you that Trump's
lawyers are already in the process of preparing a petition
(11:59):
for an injunction by the appellate court to intervene, and
should that fail, they'll also go directly to the United
States Supreme Court or a federal district court, because the
due process violations here are so obvious and egregious in
this case. So I don't even see the sentencing happening
(12:22):
on September twenty fifth. There could be an injunction if
Mershan denies the motion.
Speaker 1 (12:29):
So what would be the timing of the appeal process,
Because you know, if you look at the case of
and Goron, I think the Appellate Court in New York
five separate times overruled the judge and Gorn on that
particular case. The idea that mar A lago his valuation
of it at eighteen million dollars, you know, was maintained
(12:52):
all throughout that civil trial was unbelievable to me. And
because we know, any any rudimentary perusal of real estate
in Pombiach, Florida. You know, I'm a resident now of Florida,
right that in fact, you would see that that's a
billion dollar property or close to it, or maybe more,
I don't know exactly, but you can buy an empty
(13:14):
lot two acres on the ocean alone two hundred million dollars.
Speaker 2 (13:21):
Yeah, I mean, the whole thing is insane to the
point of being laughable.
Speaker 4 (13:27):
You know, in.
Speaker 2 (13:27):
Gorin already decided Trump's fate before the trial even began,
and witnesses took the hand. He found him guilty of fraud.
This is this has got to be the first case.
Speaker 3 (13:39):
Oh those is like summary judgment, no, no need for
a jury. We're done. I a rule against Trump.
Speaker 2 (13:45):
The rest of it was just a charade. I don't
think I've ever seen a case in which somebody's been
found guilty of fraud where no one was defrauded. There
was no victim in this case, the people that he
allegedly defraud at the banks. So are you kidding me?
We made loads of money, We weren't defrauded. We did
(14:06):
our own due diligence and found that the approximations of
values were roughly consistent, and so there was no fraud here.
So you know, this case will not withstand judicial scrutiny
from higher courts. But in the interium, of course, democrats thought,
(14:28):
Letitia James thtt, I'll do damage to Donald Trump. All
of this law fair, All of the cases have backfired spectacularly.
Speaker 1 (14:38):
Greg Jarrett, we appreciate it as always the Greg Jarrett
The Podcast Don't Miss that as well, and of course
on Fox News all the time, pretty much quite often.
Great piece Foxnews dot Com. Greg Jarrett, thank you, sir,
appreciate you being with us. Thanks all right, as we continue,
we are at the RNC, we are in Milwaukee. Thank
(14:58):
you for being with us. We got great show tonight,
nine Eastern Hannity, Fox News. I don't think I've been
any more angry. I don't think I've been any more disgusted,
I was saying. When I saw Saturday unfold, I literally
my first thought was they just killed and my heart
(15:20):
sunk and I got choked up. And this is somebody
I've known for thirty years and something that I worried
about for a long time because things are heated in
the country, and of course you had President Joe mister
lower the temperature, you know, five days earlier, talking about
putting Trump in the bullseye, and anyway, it just it's
(15:40):
been that bad for this man. And I just felt
like they've so dehumanized him that there was always this
possibility God forbid for any elected official, but in this
case so dehumanized him that somebody would think they're doing
God's work if they took him out and this, and
I saw him go down, and then I saw the blood,
(16:03):
and I said, I thought there was a bullet in
his head for sure, I mean a millimeter. If he
didn't turn his head, we'd be talking about a state
funeral today, and we wouldn't be in Milwaukee. This convention
would have been delayed. And what has infuriated me is
now what is coming out. There is nothing that they
(16:24):
can hide. The Secret Service agents around Donald Trump were phenomenal.
They did what they're hired to do. They put their
bodies on top of his and they were willing to
risk their lives to save his life. In the end,
after the shooting began, the fact that we now know
from one hundred and thirty or so yards that there
(16:49):
was a assassin on a roof. And now we have
the words of the head of the US Secret Service,
Kim Cheatle, saying that the buck stops with me, but
I do plan to stay on. This woman is not
qualified to stay on. And then when I played the
next clip, I promise all of you, and I played
(17:10):
it early, I'm going to play it again you will
be extremely and rightly so angry.
Speaker 5 (17:15):
Listen, what was your reaction when you saw the events
unfold on Saturday, shock.
Speaker 6 (17:21):
And then concern obviously for the former president. This is
an event that should have never happened.
Speaker 5 (17:27):
Who is most responsible for this happening?
Speaker 6 (17:30):
What I would say is that the Secret Service is
responsible for the protection of the former president.
Speaker 3 (17:34):
So the buck stops with you, The buck stops with me.
Speaker 6 (17:37):
I am the director of the Secret Service. It was
unacceptable and it's something that shouldn't happen again.
Speaker 5 (17:42):
The President and Homeland Security Secretary said today they had
one hundred percent confidence in you, but there are some
members of Congress calling on you to resign.
Speaker 6 (17:51):
I appreciate the Secretary's comments, and we're going to continue
to be transparent and communicate with people.
Speaker 5 (17:57):
You plan to stay on, absolutely, I do plan to
stay on.
Speaker 1 (18:00):
I do plan to stay on. How can you admit
that you were responsible? Now, this is where it gets
really infuriating, because she's talking about the US Secret Service
from one hundred and thirty yards away. They didn't put
agents on the rooftop where this assassin shot Donald Trump
(18:21):
for health and safety reasons.
Speaker 3 (18:24):
Wow, Wow, listen to this.
Speaker 5 (18:28):
Should that roof have been secure?
Speaker 3 (18:30):
Period?
Speaker 6 (18:30):
That building in particular has a sloped roof at its
highest point, and so you know, there's a safety factor
that would be considered there that we wouldn't want to
put somebody up on a sloped roof. And so you know,
the decision was made to secure the building from.
Speaker 1 (18:45):
Inside, secure the building from the inside. All right, let's
let's let me seed some ground that I don't think
I should, but let's say, Okay, it wasn't as safe
for the agents to be on the roof. How about
they surround the perimeter of the building and watch the
(19:05):
roof and have sniper fire on the roof so that
nobody else can go on the sloped roof. And then
you would have protected the president. It's not that complicated
if you cared enough. That is basic, rudimentary, fundamental, one
(19:26):
oh one common sense. And if that is your role
and responsibility, you have an obligation to make sure any
former president, any president, any presidential candidate, any elected official,
any family member is safe and secure at all times.
(19:47):
There's no excuse at all whatsoever for this colossal error
that came within a millimeter of assassinating Donald Trump.
Speaker 3 (19:58):
There's just no excuse at all. Anyway.
Speaker 1 (20:02):
Joining us now is Tim Schmidt. He's the CEO, co
founder of our friends and partners at Delta Defense and
a Wisconsin based company.
Speaker 7 (20:10):
There.
Speaker 1 (20:11):
They're right here at the RNC doing their best to
get the word out.
Speaker 3 (20:15):
When when you when you.
Speaker 1 (20:17):
Heard those words of the head of the US Secret Service,
were you as angry as I am?
Speaker 4 (20:25):
Oh Sean, I was. I was mortified, and yes, extremely
angry angry. I can't believe that she said that. I
can't believe that she won't step down. It's it's just
simply hard to believe, especially over a slope roof.
Speaker 1 (20:38):
You know, I know the USCCA partnered with the former
head of the FBI for training at Quantico and and
one when I had an opportunity to sit down with
all of you and meet with all of you, and
if you remember, I kind of dialed in to his
work and his career and his profession and what he
(20:58):
does every day, and that is, you know, to train
the most elite law enforcement agency in the in the world,
in the country, and the amount of training that goes
in to becoming a special agent for the FBI is
so extensive and exhaustive. I just I can't even imagine
how something like this fundamental, basic, rudimentary can happen and
(21:23):
did you get any reaction?
Speaker 4 (21:26):
So you're talking about Rob Chadwick, the former head of
tactical training at Quantago. I haven't talked to him directly yet.
He's he's sent a few messages out to the entire
staff at USCCA essentially giving similar commentary to you as
to the travesty of this and and yeah, it's just
simply hard to believe. And I'm thinking, my lucky stars
(21:46):
that that that deploy missed. So that's that's good news.
Speaker 1 (21:50):
You know, I just gotta just imagine that, you know, simple, basic,
fundamental common sense.
Speaker 4 (21:57):
You know.
Speaker 1 (21:57):
One of the things that that I'm proud of in
my association with your organization now for nine years is
the fact that you guys really could do care about
training and a lot of people don't know. And you
know that I trained mixed martial arts my senses in
this room right now, and you know, we train every day,
and he beats the crap out of me, to be
very honest, and I've gotten strong and I've gotten tough,
(22:20):
but we do situational self defense and it is, you know,
a daily training exercise. You know, we have this line
he uses. I'm just a mere student of the arts.
He's a master is keeping it real and putting me
in situations where I've got to I got to react,
and I got to react automatically, and there's no thinking involved.
Speaker 3 (22:41):
By the time I react, it's over.
Speaker 1 (22:43):
Whatever it is is over before I ever get a
chance to even think about it.
Speaker 3 (22:48):
And why didn't that happen here? This is so basic.
Speaker 4 (22:52):
Yeah, it's hard to answer that question. But you're right, though, Sean,
there is no time to think about it. And I mean,
we have over eight hundred and twenty five thousand members
here at the USCCA, and our number one thing that
we focus on is education and training because if you're
if you're properly understanding of what could happen, and if
you trained for that, then you don't have to worry
about the aftermath. And I mean, I'm not sure if
(23:12):
you know this. We have over ten thousand instructors all
across the country. We are the fastest growing pro Second
Amendment self defense organization. And for this to happen so
close to the RNC Republican National Committee in Milwaukee, it
just really hits close to home.
Speaker 3 (23:29):
It really did.
Speaker 1 (23:30):
And seeing Donald Trump last night and seeing that bandage
on his head. I mean, wow, it just it just
brings home how close we came to a former president
of being assassinated.
Speaker 3 (23:42):
It's so scary.
Speaker 1 (23:43):
And in this day and age of no bail laws
and reimagining and defunding and dismantling the police, I mean,
it's scary out there. And then people have to now
put you know, put security, you know, take the responsibility
for it themselves, and that makes it even doubly hard.
Speaker 4 (24:00):
Yeah, and Sean, that's such a great point. That's another
one of our main messages is that you know, as
a as a responsible American, you have to be your
family's first lamb defense. I mean, yes, the police are
oft in there to clean up the mess, and I
you know, I'm very grateful for our servants in blue,
the cops. But but boy, I'll tell you what, nine
times out of ten, you've got to be your first
(24:22):
lamb defense. And again, that's that's what we teach our
over eight hundred thousand members.
Speaker 1 (24:27):
We really appreciate you. Tim Schmidt, CEO, co founder Delta Defense,
You're a good man, my best to Rob and everybody
on your team. You have a great team over there,
and you know, defendfamily dot com. If you want to
get a lot of information, they have over eight thousand
sites where they're affiliated with for situational self defense as well,
if you're looking for it in your own life, and
(24:47):
I highly recommend it for everybody.
Speaker 3 (24:49):
These are kind of dangerous time.
Speaker 1 (24:50):
Small towns, big cities all across the country, appreciate it.
Quick break, we'll come right back. We'll hit the phones
toll free as we continue from Milwaukee. Eight hundred and
nine foot one Shawn our number as we roll along.
Speaker 2 (25:07):
Up next our final roundup and information overload hours.
Speaker 1 (25:18):
Let's get to our busy phones. Eight hundred and nine
four one Shawn is a number. Let's go to al
and he's holding down the fort for me in the
Free state of Florida. Al.
Speaker 3 (25:26):
How are you welcome to Milwaukee.
Speaker 7 (25:28):
Sir, Hi Sewn. Great to talk to you.
Speaker 3 (25:31):
It's great to talk to you. What's going on?
Speaker 7 (25:33):
Well, I just have something that's really bothering me. Sean.
When do we organize a January sixth committee? When do
the Republicans step forward? We should have a loss it
against Biden, Mayorcus, all of these guys, the judge. You know,
when do we go after them the way they've gone
(25:56):
after Donald Trump for six seven years, eight years.
Speaker 3 (26:00):
Well, let me tell you what the difference is.
Speaker 1 (26:01):
And in the past I'd not stated this or articulated
this well enough, and people misunderstood me. No, We're not
going to go after them for superfluous reasons or made
up charges. However, you know, as it relates to the
weaponization of our Justice department, how it relates, for example,
(26:24):
to you know, the five hundred and seventy four riots
in the summer of twenty twenty that they lied to
us and said were mostly peaceful. How it relates to
Joe Biden firing a prosecutor and the net result of it,
after leveraging a billion taxpayer dollars, was that his completely
inexperienced son, addicted to drugs at the time, gets paid millions,
(26:46):
has a laptop that we know fifty one former Intel
agents knew nothing about, but they lied to us about
in the weeks leading up to the election in twenty twenty.
That implicates his own father. All of that is legitimate investigation,
It's not made up. That is what Republicans stand for.
(27:08):
I don't want law fare, I don't want made up charges.
All I want is equal application of our laws. All
I want is equal justice under the law. Does that
makes sense? I'm hopefully saying it better than I have
in the past.
Speaker 7 (27:23):
It makes sense the way you explain it. The problem is,
how do you get equal justice unless you go after
this and you.
Speaker 1 (27:31):
Have to win an election and then you have legitimate
investigations on real allegations of real impropriety and potentially real crimes.
Speaker 3 (27:42):
That's how you do it.
Speaker 1 (27:43):
You don't make up You know a legal NDA statute
of limitations ran out, and you know from eight years
ago that legal nda negotiated by a lawyer, labeled as
a legal defense, not taken as a tax deduction. And
how does that evolve into thirty four felony charges with
(28:03):
a judge that had nothing but an abusively biased attitude
towards Donald Trump, the whole trial and a venue where
Donald Trump was never gonna get a fair trial. I
said that from the beginning he can't get a fair
trial in New York DC or Fulton County, Georgia. Looks
like all of it's gonna go away. But you get
my point is.
Speaker 7 (28:22):
That gonna go away? Is this judge.
Speaker 1 (28:25):
Gonna whether the judge does it or not. There's no
way this stands on appeal. If if I were a
betting man and I bet little bets, not big bets,
I will tell you it's it's it's all going away.
Speaker 3 (28:39):
Yes, I believe that.
Speaker 7 (28:41):
Oh well, I think that the Democrats probably figured if
they lose this, it's all gonna go away anyway. But
you know, it's a shame what they've done to this man.
I mean, it's been just torture on all of us.
Just what's what they're doing to him.
Speaker 1 (28:57):
It's been torture. And what's amazing is his fortitude and
his strength. That's him standing up after getting shot and
putting his fist in the air and saying fight, fight,
and then fake news CNN and fake CBS criticize him.
Speaker 3 (29:14):
Well, he said fight, What did you want him to say?
I surrender?
Speaker 1 (29:17):
Shoot me again. I mean, it's they're pathetic. Don't ever
trust the media again. They've known that Joe's cognitively compromised
as long as I have, and they've covered it up
and they lied
Thanks got chat an hour two Sean Hannity Show, eight
hundred and nine four one Sean, if you want to
be a part of the program. The other breaking news
today as we continue from Milwaukee we're in Wisconsin is
Senator Menendez New Jersey guilty in his well corruption case,
and now calls are getting loud for him to resign.
(00:22):
He was already planning on only running as an independent,
not as a Democrat in New Jersey. And it's getting
more interesting by the minute. Anyway, here to talk about
that and a lot more. He wrote this great column yesterday.
We had not spent enough time on Eileen Cannon's historic,
frankly ruling as it relates to the Trump document case
(00:43):
down in Florida and the outright dismissal of Jack Smith
due to the appointment clause of our Constitution. Our very
good friend Greg Jared is with us, Fox News contributor
and friend of the program, legal analyst and best selling author, Sir, welcome.
Speaker 2 (00:58):
Back to be with you. I'm relieved that a Manhattan
jury did the right thing. It was an easy choice.
Bob Menendez was dead bank guilty of bribery and corruption
and extortion conspiracy. I mean eighteen different counts, guilty on
all of them. I mean, the evidence was so compelling
(01:19):
and overwhelming, invasual Sean gold bars, tens of them.
Speaker 3 (01:26):
I love that. I don't know what I like more.
Speaker 1 (01:28):
The gold bars are the Mercedes, I mean pretty wow.
Everyone has gold bars that they didn't pay for in
their house and inside of their soup pocket, right.
Speaker 2 (01:37):
Yeah, and the cash stuffed in shoes and yeah, pockets everywhere,
and a huge bag of cash. And you know, he
tried to pull a Fannie Willis. You remember when she said, oh, yeah,
I only deal with cash. That's how I reimburse my lover,
because it's a cultural thing. So Menendez tried to pull
(01:59):
the ind Oh that's a Cuban thing to you know,
keep your money in cash. Nonsense, Jersey are not stupid.
And you know, there was so much other evidence that
he was demanding benefits in cash and gold bars in
exchange for taking official action as a powerful member of
(02:20):
the US Senate chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. This
is so typical of Menendez. And you know, the normal person,
when you get away with it the first time with
an acquittal, you know they knock it off. No, it
only in bolden and incentivized Goldbar Bob to do it
(02:40):
even more and do it blatantly. He thought he was
above the law.
Speaker 3 (02:45):
It really did. I thought it was a slam dung too.
Speaker 1 (02:48):
And however, he had previously been charged and gotten away
with it. In that case, Abby Lowell represented him. I
think he was part of the defense, but he was
not the lead council.
Speaker 3 (02:58):
Was he.
Speaker 2 (02:59):
No, he wasn't. And you know, I you know, I
sort of know Abby, known him for years.
Speaker 1 (03:05):
Each Abby's a real attorney. I mean, you can't say anything.
I mean, he's good at what he does, period, but
he him is. His involvement probably helped him. Not leading
it didn't help.
Speaker 2 (03:16):
Yeah, But even Abby, as good as he is, could
not pull the rabbit out of the hat on this one.
It really was a slam dug. So Menendez is finished.
You know, he should resign or be expelled immediately. Of course,
you know, he lost in the primary. He's going to
(03:38):
end up behind bars, probably for the rest of his life.
He's seventy years old.
Speaker 3 (03:43):
Unbelievable.
Speaker 1 (03:44):
Let me go yesterday on this program, I did quote
your article that you put out on Fox news dot Com,
which was amazing, actually a great analysis. Thank you of
Judge Eileen Cannon ruling that the appointment of the Special
Council was in fact unconstitution and you know, you put
this has come up, for example, even in the Moler case.
(04:05):
We've had other special counsels before. And this really goes
down to the appointments clause in our Constitution, which is
very clear, which provides for the exclusive means for selecting
all officers of the US and they must be appointed
by the President and confirmed by the Senate. And that
(04:26):
didn't happen here. And now this should probably impact Although
I wouldn't expect the judge in DC to actually follow
the Constitution. That's my own personal view, but she should
be following that case, this case, and following the lead
of this Florida judge, who I think very courageously made
the right constitutional and legal decision.
Speaker 2 (04:46):
Yeah, Cannon's ruling in Florida is not binding on the
federal judge in DC, Tanya Chutkin. He's already made it
abundantly clear she's not going to toss the case on
the same grounds. But that prosecution Sean has already stalled
by the two recent Supreme Court decisions over the immunity
(05:07):
issue the improper use of an obstruction statute. So she
may issue a ruling exactly the opposite of Canon, which
means it probably then goes to the US Supreme Court,
because when you have two competing decisions in different jurisdictions
(05:28):
over an important issue like this, inevitably it winds its
way to the US Supreme Court, where I think it will.
Canon's decision will receive a friendly greeting from the likes
of Clarence Thomas and Samuel Leto and others on the Court.
Speaker 1 (05:47):
You know, and you point it out in your piece
that while special councils have operated without specific legislative consent,
when you go back, you look at Patrick Fitzgerald, he
went after Scooter Libby and that was during the Bush administration.
Or Robert Muller and this appointment's clause came up. I
remember asking you about it at the time. Or John
(06:09):
Durham or David Weiss or Robert Hurt, for example, all
of which had been presidentially appointed and Senate approved in
prior positions. Now I don't I think it's got to
be specific to a particular case. I would make that
argument myself. You know, the law better than I do.
But in the case of Jack Smith, he never had
(06:29):
such an appointment as these other people did.
Speaker 2 (06:32):
It's true, he was a private citizen, you know, for
a nano second. He was an acting US attorney, just
a fill in for a couple of months, but he
was never appointed by the President for any official position.
And you know, he was never sent it confirmed. And therein,
(06:54):
you know, was the difficulty for Jack Smith and Merrick Garland. Look,
Merrick Garland Pitt Smith knowing that Smith would never be
senator proved because he had this shameful, notorious track record
of manipulating the law in other cases to bring politically
(07:14):
driven prosecutions. That's exactly the kind of guy that Merrick
Garland wanted. So he had a quandary, here, what am
I going to do? Well, I'll circumvent the Constitution to
target Trump with manufactured charges, and I will without authority,
named Smith as my ruthless mob enforcer, which is exactly
(07:38):
what happened. But you know, they got caught by a
judge who scrutinized what both of them did and said,
under the Constitution, you can't do this.
Speaker 1 (07:50):
Yeah, amazing, you talk about our framers. They don't give
enough attention, in my view, to our framers and the
role that they gave Congress and appointment role of principal
and inferior officers.
Speaker 3 (08:04):
And you rightly point.
Speaker 1 (08:05):
Out a cap that role can't be usurped by the
executive branch, and the DOJ falls under the executive branch.
This is Joe Biden's Department of Justice, which we both
believe is weaponized.
Speaker 4 (08:21):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (08:21):
Absolutely, and there is a Supreme Court support for that.
You'll find it in Cannon's opinion. She the Edmunds case,
the Buckley case, and she quotes from them that the
appointment's clause is not a matter of etiquette protocol. It's
(08:41):
a significant structural safeguard of the Constitution and you've got
to follow it. So, you know, I think this was
a ninety three page, well reason, beautifully written decision. But
she was aided in great part, and credit is due
(09:02):
to Edwin Mee Send Michael mckazy, two distinguished former US
Attorneys General who wrote an amicus brief Friend of the
Court and laid out exactly the position that Judge Cannon
eventually adopted.
Speaker 1 (09:18):
All right, quick, Frank, we'll come right back. We'll continue
eight hundred and ninety four one. Sean, if you want
to be a part of the program, more with Greg
Jarrett than your call straight ahead as we continue.
Speaker 3 (09:28):
All right, we continue with Greg Jarrett.
Speaker 1 (09:29):
Then your calls coming up straight ahead as we continue
from Milwaukee.
Speaker 3 (09:32):
We are in Wisconsin.
Speaker 1 (09:34):
Let me ask you, let's go back to the Supreme
Court decision as it relates to the president and official duties,
and let's apply this to the delayed sentencing. Now in
the case of the thirty four counts of New York
and Judge Mershawn, because evidence introduced in that case leading
(09:54):
to the quote thirty four convictions, we have been very
critical of the whole process. But I want to specifically
deal with the idea that evidence in that case that
the jury considered was evidence from the time in which
Donald Trump was president. That to me means that that
entire case, those decisions, it needs to be vacated.
Speaker 3 (10:17):
And I don't think Judge Mershawn's going to do it.
Speaker 1 (10:21):
I mean, he has shown himself to be abusively biased
towards Donald Trump.
Speaker 4 (10:25):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (10:26):
Absolutely, there is a motion pending. It was filed literally
days ago. I read it over and over again. It
makes a persuasive, compelling argument that because so much of
the evidence in testimony was arguably covered by official acts
(10:49):
and therefore immune, there is no choice but the trial
court judge should vacate the verdicts and dismiss the cases.
Speaker 1 (11:00):
Assuming he doesn't and sentencing moves forward in September, I
forget the date.
Speaker 3 (11:04):
I think it was September twenty something, whatever, it was.
Speaker 1 (11:07):
Fifth, Okay, So assuming that the sentencing moves forward, then
there will be an instant appeals appeal on that issue.
But I mean, this judge could remand Donald Trump to
jail in that moment.
Speaker 2 (11:22):
The New York law does not support jail time for this.
Speaker 3 (11:29):
These And tell me with this judge why that would matter.
Speaker 2 (11:33):
Yeah, I mean, your point is an excellent one. Is
always he doesn't care. Look, I think what will happen
is the judge has to rule before the sentencing on
the pending motion to dismiss the case for the reasons
you and I just discussed. I guarantee you that Trump's
lawyers are already in the process of preparing a petition
(11:59):
for an injunction by the appellate court to intervene, and
should that fail, they'll also go directly to the United
States Supreme Court or a federal district court, because the
due process violations here are so obvious and egregious in
this case. So I don't even see the sentencing happening
(12:22):
on September twenty fifth. There could be an injunction if
Mershan denies the motion.
Speaker 1 (12:29):
So what would be the timing of the appeal process,
Because you know, if you look at the case of
and Goron, I think the Appellate Court in New York
five separate times overruled the judge and Gorn on that
particular case. The idea that mar A lago his valuation
of it at eighteen million dollars, you know, was maintained
(12:52):
all throughout that civil trial was unbelievable to me. And
because we know, any any rudimentary perusal of real estate
in Pombiach, Florida. You know, I'm a resident now of Florida,
right that in fact, you would see that that's a
billion dollar property or close to it, or maybe more,
I don't know exactly, but you can buy an empty
(13:14):
lot two acres on the ocean alone two hundred million dollars.
Speaker 2 (13:21):
Yeah, I mean, the whole thing is insane to the
point of being laughable.
Speaker 4 (13:27):
You know, in.
Speaker 2 (13:27):
Gorin already decided Trump's fate before the trial even began,
and witnesses took the hand. He found him guilty of fraud.
This is this has got to be the first case.
Speaker 3 (13:39):
Oh those is like summary judgment, no, no need for
a jury. We're done. I a rule against Trump.
Speaker 2 (13:45):
The rest of it was just a charade. I don't
think I've ever seen a case in which somebody's been
found guilty of fraud where no one was defrauded. There
was no victim in this case, the people that he
allegedly defraud at the banks. So are you kidding me?
We made loads of money, We weren't defrauded. We did
(14:06):
our own due diligence and found that the approximations of
values were roughly consistent, and so there was no fraud here.
So you know, this case will not withstand judicial scrutiny
from higher courts. But in the interium, of course, democrats thought,
(14:28):
Letitia James thtt, I'll do damage to Donald Trump. All
of this law fair, All of the cases have backfired spectacularly.
Speaker 1 (14:38):
Greg Jarrett, we appreciate it as always the Greg Jarrett
The Podcast Don't Miss that as well, and of course
on Fox News all the time, pretty much quite often.
Great piece Foxnews dot Com. Greg Jarrett, thank you, sir,
appreciate you being with us. Thanks all right, as we continue,
we are at the RNC, we are in Milwaukee. Thank
(14:58):
you for being with us. We got great show tonight,
nine Eastern Hannity, Fox News. I don't think I've been
any more angry. I don't think I've been any more disgusted,
I was saying. When I saw Saturday unfold, I literally
my first thought was they just killed and my heart
(15:20):
sunk and I got choked up. And this is somebody
I've known for thirty years and something that I worried
about for a long time because things are heated in
the country, and of course you had President Joe mister
lower the temperature, you know, five days earlier, talking about
putting Trump in the bullseye, and anyway, it just it's
(15:40):
been that bad for this man. And I just felt
like they've so dehumanized him that there was always this
possibility God forbid for any elected official, but in this
case so dehumanized him that somebody would think they're doing
God's work if they took him out and this, and
I saw him go down, and then I saw the blood,
(16:03):
and I said, I thought there was a bullet in
his head for sure, I mean a millimeter. If he
didn't turn his head, we'd be talking about a state
funeral today, and we wouldn't be in Milwaukee. This convention
would have been delayed. And what has infuriated me is
now what is coming out. There is nothing that they
(16:24):
can hide. The Secret Service agents around Donald Trump were phenomenal.
They did what they're hired to do. They put their
bodies on top of his and they were willing to
risk their lives to save his life. In the end,
after the shooting began, the fact that we now know
from one hundred and thirty or so yards that there
(16:49):
was a assassin on a roof. And now we have
the words of the head of the US Secret Service,
Kim Cheatle, saying that the buck stops with me, but
I do plan to stay on. This woman is not
qualified to stay on. And then when I played the
next clip, I promise all of you, and I played
(17:10):
it early, I'm going to play it again you will
be extremely and rightly so angry.
Speaker 5 (17:15):
Listen, what was your reaction when you saw the events
unfold on Saturday, shock.
Speaker 6 (17:21):
And then concern obviously for the former president. This is
an event that should have never happened.
Speaker 5 (17:27):
Who is most responsible for this happening?
Speaker 6 (17:30):
What I would say is that the Secret Service is
responsible for the protection of the former president.
Speaker 3 (17:34):
So the buck stops with you, The buck stops with me.
Speaker 6 (17:37):
I am the director of the Secret Service. It was
unacceptable and it's something that shouldn't happen again.
Speaker 5 (17:42):
The President and Homeland Security Secretary said today they had
one hundred percent confidence in you, but there are some
members of Congress calling on you to resign.
Speaker 6 (17:51):
I appreciate the Secretary's comments, and we're going to continue
to be transparent and communicate with people.
Speaker 5 (17:57):
You plan to stay on, absolutely, I do plan to
stay on.
Speaker 1 (18:00):
I do plan to stay on. How can you admit
that you were responsible? Now, this is where it gets
really infuriating, because she's talking about the US Secret Service
from one hundred and thirty yards away. They didn't put
agents on the rooftop where this assassin shot Donald Trump
(18:21):
for health and safety reasons.
Speaker 3 (18:24):
Wow, Wow, listen to this.
Speaker 5 (18:28):
Should that roof have been secure?
Speaker 3 (18:30):
Period?
Speaker 6 (18:30):
That building in particular has a sloped roof at its
highest point, and so you know, there's a safety factor
that would be considered there that we wouldn't want to
put somebody up on a sloped roof. And so you know,
the decision was made to secure the building from.
Speaker 1 (18:45):
Inside, secure the building from the inside. All right, let's
let's let me seed some ground that I don't think
I should, but let's say, Okay, it wasn't as safe
for the agents to be on the roof. How about
they surround the perimeter of the building and watch the
(19:05):
roof and have sniper fire on the roof so that
nobody else can go on the sloped roof. And then
you would have protected the president. It's not that complicated
if you cared enough. That is basic, rudimentary, fundamental, one
(19:26):
oh one common sense. And if that is your role
and responsibility, you have an obligation to make sure any
former president, any president, any presidential candidate, any elected official,
any family member is safe and secure at all times.
(19:47):
There's no excuse at all whatsoever for this colossal error
that came within a millimeter of assassinating Donald Trump.
Speaker 3 (19:58):
There's just no excuse at all. Anyway.
Speaker 1 (20:02):
Joining us now is Tim Schmidt. He's the CEO, co
founder of our friends and partners at Delta Defense and
a Wisconsin based company.
Speaker 7 (20:10):
There.
Speaker 1 (20:11):
They're right here at the RNC doing their best to
get the word out.
Speaker 3 (20:15):
When when you when you.
Speaker 1 (20:17):
Heard those words of the head of the US Secret Service,
were you as angry as I am?
Speaker 4 (20:25):
Oh Sean, I was. I was mortified, and yes, extremely
angry angry. I can't believe that she said that. I
can't believe that she won't step down. It's it's just
simply hard to believe, especially over a slope roof.
Speaker 1 (20:38):
You know, I know the USCCA partnered with the former
head of the FBI for training at Quantico and and
one when I had an opportunity to sit down with
all of you and meet with all of you, and
if you remember, I kind of dialed in to his
work and his career and his profession and what he
(20:58):
does every day, and that is, you know, to train
the most elite law enforcement agency in the in the world,
in the country, and the amount of training that goes
in to becoming a special agent for the FBI is
so extensive and exhaustive. I just I can't even imagine
how something like this fundamental, basic, rudimentary can happen and
(21:23):
did you get any reaction?
Speaker 4 (21:26):
So you're talking about Rob Chadwick, the former head of
tactical training at Quantago. I haven't talked to him directly yet.
He's he's sent a few messages out to the entire
staff at USCCA essentially giving similar commentary to you as
to the travesty of this and and yeah, it's just
simply hard to believe. And I'm thinking, my lucky stars
(21:46):
that that that deploy missed. So that's that's good news.
Speaker 1 (21:50):
You know, I just gotta just imagine that, you know, simple, basic,
fundamental common sense.
Speaker 4 (21:57):
You know.
Speaker 1 (21:57):
One of the things that that I'm proud of in
my association with your organization now for nine years is
the fact that you guys really could do care about
training and a lot of people don't know. And you
know that I trained mixed martial arts my senses in
this room right now, and you know, we train every day,
and he beats the crap out of me, to be
very honest, and I've gotten strong and I've gotten tough,
(22:20):
but we do situational self defense and it is, you know,
a daily training exercise. You know, we have this line
he uses. I'm just a mere student of the arts.
He's a master is keeping it real and putting me
in situations where I've got to I got to react,
and I got to react automatically, and there's no thinking involved.
Speaker 3 (22:41):
By the time I react, it's over.
Speaker 1 (22:43):
Whatever it is is over before I ever get a
chance to even think about it.
Speaker 3 (22:48):
And why didn't that happen here? This is so basic.
Speaker 4 (22:52):
Yeah, it's hard to answer that question. But you're right, though, Sean,
there is no time to think about it. And I mean,
we have over eight hundred and twenty five thousand members
here at the USCCA, and our number one thing that
we focus on is education and training because if you're
if you're properly understanding of what could happen, and if
you trained for that, then you don't have to worry
about the aftermath. And I mean, I'm not sure if
(23:12):
you know this. We have over ten thousand instructors all
across the country. We are the fastest growing pro Second
Amendment self defense organization. And for this to happen so
close to the RNC Republican National Committee in Milwaukee, it
just really hits close to home.
Speaker 3 (23:29):
It really did.
Speaker 1 (23:30):
And seeing Donald Trump last night and seeing that bandage
on his head. I mean, wow, it just it just
brings home how close we came to a former president
of being assassinated.
Speaker 3 (23:42):
It's so scary.
Speaker 1 (23:43):
And in this day and age of no bail laws
and reimagining and defunding and dismantling the police, I mean,
it's scary out there. And then people have to now
put you know, put security, you know, take the responsibility
for it themselves, and that makes it even doubly hard.
Speaker 4 (24:00):
Yeah, and Sean, that's such a great point. That's another
one of our main messages is that you know, as
a as a responsible American, you have to be your
family's first lamb defense. I mean, yes, the police are
oft in there to clean up the mess, and I
you know, I'm very grateful for our servants in blue,
the cops. But but boy, I'll tell you what, nine
times out of ten, you've got to be your first
(24:22):
lamb defense. And again, that's that's what we teach our
over eight hundred thousand members.
Speaker 1 (24:27):
We really appreciate you. Tim Schmidt, CEO, co founder Delta Defense,
You're a good man, my best to Rob and everybody
on your team. You have a great team over there,
and you know, defendfamily dot com. If you want to
get a lot of information, they have over eight thousand
sites where they're affiliated with for situational self defense as well,
if you're looking for it in your own life, and
(24:47):
I highly recommend it for everybody.
Speaker 3 (24:49):
These are kind of dangerous time.
Speaker 1 (24:50):
Small towns, big cities all across the country, appreciate it.
Quick break, we'll come right back. We'll hit the phones
toll free as we continue from Milwaukee. Eight hundred and
nine foot one Shawn our number as we roll along.
Speaker 2 (25:07):
Up next our final roundup and information overload hours.
Speaker 1 (25:18):
Let's get to our busy phones. Eight hundred and nine
four one Shawn is a number. Let's go to al
and he's holding down the fort for me in the
Free state of Florida. Al.
Speaker 3 (25:26):
How are you welcome to Milwaukee.
Speaker 7 (25:28):
Sir, Hi Sewn. Great to talk to you.
Speaker 3 (25:31):
It's great to talk to you. What's going on?
Speaker 7 (25:33):
Well, I just have something that's really bothering me. Sean.
When do we organize a January sixth committee? When do
the Republicans step forward? We should have a loss it
against Biden, Mayorcus, all of these guys, the judge. You know,
when do we go after them the way they've gone
(25:56):
after Donald Trump for six seven years, eight years.
Speaker 3 (26:00):
Well, let me tell you what the difference is.
Speaker 1 (26:01):
And in the past I'd not stated this or articulated
this well enough, and people misunderstood me. No, We're not
going to go after them for superfluous reasons or made
up charges. However, you know, as it relates to the
weaponization of our Justice department, how it relates, for example,
(26:24):
to you know, the five hundred and seventy four riots
in the summer of twenty twenty that they lied to
us and said were mostly peaceful. How it relates to
Joe Biden firing a prosecutor and the net result of it,
after leveraging a billion taxpayer dollars, was that his completely
inexperienced son, addicted to drugs at the time, gets paid millions,
(26:46):
has a laptop that we know fifty one former Intel
agents knew nothing about, but they lied to us about
in the weeks leading up to the election in twenty twenty.
That implicates his own father. All of that is legitimate investigation,
It's not made up. That is what Republicans stand for.
(27:08):
I don't want law fare, I don't want made up charges.
All I want is equal application of our laws. All
I want is equal justice under the law. Does that
makes sense? I'm hopefully saying it better than I have
in the past.
Speaker 7 (27:23):
It makes sense the way you explain it. The problem is,
how do you get equal justice unless you go after
this and you.
Speaker 1 (27:31):
Have to win an election and then you have legitimate
investigations on real allegations of real impropriety and potentially real crimes.
Speaker 3 (27:42):
That's how you do it.
Speaker 1 (27:43):
You don't make up You know a legal NDA statute
of limitations ran out, and you know from eight years
ago that legal nda negotiated by a lawyer, labeled as
a legal defense, not taken as a tax deduction. And
how does that evolve into thirty four felony charges with
(28:03):
a judge that had nothing but an abusively biased attitude
towards Donald Trump, the whole trial and a venue where
Donald Trump was never gonna get a fair trial. I
said that from the beginning he can't get a fair
trial in New York DC or Fulton County, Georgia. Looks
like all of it's gonna go away. But you get
my point is.
Speaker 7 (28:22):
That gonna go away? Is this judge.
Speaker 1 (28:25):
Gonna whether the judge does it or not. There's no
way this stands on appeal. If if I were a
betting man and I bet little bets, not big bets,
I will tell you it's it's it's all going away.
Speaker 3 (28:39):
Yes, I believe that.
Speaker 7 (28:41):
Oh well, I think that the Democrats probably figured if
they lose this, it's all gonna go away anyway. But
you know, it's a shame what they've done to this man.
I mean, it's been just torture on all of us.
Just what's what they're doing to him.
Speaker 1 (28:57):
It's been torture. And what's amazing is his fortitude and
his strength. That's him standing up after getting shot and
putting his fist in the air and saying fight, fight,
and then fake news CNN and fake CBS criticize him.
Speaker 3 (29:14):
Well, he said fight, What did you want him to say?
I surrender?
Speaker 1 (29:17):
Shoot me again. I mean, it's they're pathetic. Don't ever
trust the media again. They've known that Joe's cognitively compromised
as long as I have, and they've covered it up
and they lied
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.