September 25, 2025 • 28 mins
Sean Hannity breaks down the unfolding news that James Comey, former FBI Director, may be facing indictment for allegedly leaking classified information and making false statements to Congress. The story, initially leaked to MSNBC, likely signals that Comey received a target letter, with a grand jury convening in Richmond, Virginia, to weigh charges before the statute of limitations expires. Sean is joined by John Solomon, founder of Just the News, who reveals explosive new evidence from Comey's own inner circle, highlighting the significance of Comey's actions in both the Russia probe and the controversial Steele dossier. This episode is crucial as it delves into the potential consequences for Comey and the broader implications for justice and accountability at the highest levels of government.
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):
Well we have come in. I wanna way I get
sing you a conscious sound, will I'll be entire and
if you want a little banging and y ain't come along.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
When we see them trying to chill speech of jokesters,
when we're seeing all of this, that is a playbook
out of.
Speaker 3 (00:25):
Hitler, and I won't deny it.
Speaker 4 (00:27):
At my speech on the ellipse a tyrant, we used
to compare the strength of our democracy to communist dictators.
Speaker 1 (00:35):
That's what we're dealing with right now, Donald Trump, these
are the two things I got from the United Nations.
Speaker 3 (00:40):
A bad escalator and a bad teleprompter.
Speaker 2 (00:43):
Tradom is back in style. Welcome, We're coming to your.
Speaker 1 (00:54):
Don't way I gets and saying you a conscious son.
Speaker 3 (01:00):
Hannity Show more I'm the scenes, information on freaking news
and more bold inspired solutions for America.
Speaker 1 (01:09):
All right, thanks.
Speaker 3 (01:10):
Scott chan An Hour two Sean Hennity Show, toll free.
Our number is eight hundred and ninety four one Sean
if you want to be a part of the program.
Very interesting, how events were unfolding yesterday and MSDNC, they're
the ones that broke the story about about James call
(01:30):
me and the fact that he may be indicted. Also,
we have the issue of whether or not there might
be an incitement coming for Letitia James. But the whole
thing is, if you if you look at the timing
what's actually going on, it's pretty interesting. In my view,
that probably means that call me got what's called a
target letter, hence the leak. And then again this is
(01:54):
speculation on my part, but hence I would argue an
educated guess the leak to MSDNC probably told that charges
would be filed, probably knows what it's about false statements
to Congress. Now, yesterday the grand jury was not meeting.
They have been meeting today. We're waiting to see if
(02:14):
we hear any news later today because if there's going
to be an indictment, and I don't know if there is,
I'd say maybe the odds probably are sixty percent when
you look at the venue in which you know, this
grand jury is located in Virginia, Northern Virginia. But they're
meeting today. The other day that it could happen would
(02:35):
be next Tuesday. They do have one problem on this
aspect of it, and that is the statue of limitations
would run out later next week, because they're talking about
lying to Congress in September of twenty twenty, and the
month is coming to an end, and that means the
statute of limitations would be up now. If, in fact,
(02:57):
Cash Pattel, our FBI director, goes forward with his investigation
into a grand conspiracy, and we have talked at length
about this, this statute of limitations would not be applicable.
That would mean you can go all the way back
to Hillary Clinton and her top secret classified information on
our server. You can work your way through the lies
(03:21):
and you know, the dirty Russian disinformation dossier that was
bought and paid for by Hillary becoming the base basis
of PISA warrence. That would lead you through you know,
the second you know, after we had career senior intel
officials given assessment of the twenty sixteen election, and then
Obama didn't like it. According to reports, he himself ordered
(03:44):
his top lieutenants that would be Brennan and Clapper to
come up with a new intelligence assessment. They contradicted the
real intelligence assessment. Then it would lead through a grand
conspiracy into twenty twenty. And that is the FBI pre
bunking the very real Hunter Biden lineaptop that they verified
as authentic. In March of twenty twenty. They spent the
(04:06):
entire summer meeting weekly with big tech, big tech and
social media companies telling them, oh, you're likely going to
be victims of disinformation in the twenty twenty presidential campaign,
leading into all of the lawfare through twenty twenty four.
From twenty twenty to twenty twenty four, that would be
the Grand Conspiracy investigations. Under those circumstances, the Statute of
(04:28):
limitations would not apply anyway. The person I would say
has broken more stories on all of this over this
ten year period and doesn't stop. He's been unrelenting is
He's the founder, editor in chief and chief investigative reporter
for just thenews dot com. Our friend John Solomon is
(04:49):
with us, sir.
Speaker 2 (04:49):
How are you?
Speaker 3 (04:50):
I'm Will Sean, Okay, So you're as well connected as
anybody as I know. I'm assuming you might know more
than me, but I we understand that this has gone
before the grand jury today, that they didn't convene yesterday.
Do you think my theory about a target letter, my
theory about why it went to MSDNC in terms of news,
(05:12):
my theory about you know, not being a venue that
is a slam dunk, even though I think the case
is when we can play James Comer and President Trump
at a minute. But what are your thoughts?
Speaker 2 (05:26):
I think you set it up perfectly in just how
you describe it. You're exactly right. So this grand jury
is meeting in Richmond, in Virginia. Why are they bringing
the charges here? Because when James Comy last testified that
he never authorized a classifiedly, he was testifying remotely in
Virginia during the pandemic. So the proper venue is Virginia, Richmond,
(05:47):
the Eastern District of Virginia is the courthouse. Agents and
other witnesses are bringing that testimony today mostly if the
grand jury ends up a bill of indictment today or
next Tuesday, before the statute of limitations. Kind Now, the
evidence is very clear. It comes from a very powerful source.
It isn't some outsider, it isn't some agent. Years later,
looking at it, James Comy's own general counsel, James Baker,
(06:12):
told the FBI and documents we broke on your show
just a few weeks ago that he had been instructed
by Komy through his chief of staff, James or Bickie
to leak classified information in the fall of twenty sixteen,
just before the election. That is a powerful witness. It
isn't someone who's turned against Kmy. It's his phone inner
circle saying yeah, that's what happened. James Comy knows that
(06:34):
that allegation is out there in twenty nineteen and twenty
twenty because a special prosecutor looked at it. They made
the decision in nineteen and twenty that they're not going
to charge Baker for the leak, as Komy asked them
to do it. Then Komy goes back before Congress on
September thirtieth, twenty twenty, that's hence the five year statute
of limitations, and then says, I double down. I didn't
(06:57):
instruct anyone to leak a classified intelligen So after knowing
that the Evans was there, he doubled down on the denial,
something that his own inner circle says he did. That's
why this case is being brought. We'll see what it is.
In the old days, people would say Grand Jerry would
indict a ham sandwich if a prosecutor asked. But we're
not in the old days. In the era of Trump,
(07:18):
not only have judges and fbis and institutions become partisan,
but grand jury's can have partisan struggles as well. So
a indictment, even on very clear evidence, isn't always a
certain he's about to see what happens. I think that's
sixty percent guesstimate. He gave us a really good guest
of the probably what the odds are that something will
come of this?
Speaker 3 (07:39):
Let me play two clips of Jim Comy himself. One
is him claiming that he knew nothing about the Russia probe.
And this is pretty spectacular to me, considering he signed
three of the first four PIZA applications, the basis of
which we now know, the basis of which the second
(08:02):
intelligent assessment regarding the twenty sixteen election. They added the
Hillary Clinton bought and paid for Russian disinformation dossier. But
this is him trying to claim he knew nothing about
the Russia probe.
Speaker 5 (08:15):
Listen in October, when the warrant was submitted, the application
was submitted. What effort had been made to verify the
dossier in October?
Speaker 2 (08:27):
I don't know specifically, So.
Speaker 5 (08:29):
In October is clear, mister Comy there was no effort
to verify the dossier before it was given to the court.
Speaker 2 (08:37):
Do you agree with that? I don't know the yes.
I don't remember learning anything additional about Steel's sources, not
that I recall now. I don't remember or.
Speaker 5 (08:45):
Ever were you aware that in December twenty sixteen, the
CIA tells the FBI they characterized the dossier as Internet rumor.
Speaker 1 (08:57):
They don't recall any informed of that question.
Speaker 3 (09:00):
And John Solomon did, in fact James Calemy sign the
first pize application in October twenty sixteen despy on one
carter page, but also give them a backdoor into all
things Trump world? And did they use Hillary Clinton's bought
and paid for Russian disinformation dossier as the basis for
(09:22):
that warrant?
Speaker 1 (09:22):
A big part of the basis for that warrant?
Speaker 2 (09:25):
Oh? Absolutely, yes, he did sign the first one and
the second one in December. Why is that important? In
December we now have these new explosive documents from the
CIA director John Radcliffe, the Odie and I Tulci Gabbert,
and documents from Caspertel. What did they show? They show
that it was James Comy himself that was trying to
(09:47):
force the Steele dossi into the intelligence community. Assessment so
that they can make some claim that Donald Trump was
in bed with Russell, even though all the evidence proved otherwise.
He was still trying to go He not only knew
what was in the Steel dassay, he was one of
its largest proponents, trying to impose it on the rest
of the intelligence community. And that's not that's people like
(10:08):
Jay John Brennan saying that in documents and emails, Comy's
entire description his hands off. I don't know much about this.
It's just not true when you look at the actual document.
Speaker 1 (10:20):
Didn't he sign three of the four or fives of Warrens.
Speaker 2 (10:23):
Yeah, he signs the third one in April, and then
he fired in May. And then the last one, I
think it gets signed by Indy McCabe.
Speaker 3 (10:30):
And wasn't Christopher Steele, you know, wasn't he pushed out
of being a source for the FBI prior to the
signing of the second one.
Speaker 2 (10:40):
That's exactly right. There are three major warning signs in
the time that this happens. In September of twenty sixteen,
the CIA first warned the FBI that the Steel's circle
of sources, if you can call him that, which were
mostly cutting people that they had been compromised potentially by
Russian oligarchs, and he needed to be revalidated. They then
(11:01):
submit the first warrant, the search warrant. They get it
approved on November first of twenty sixteen, Christopher Steel's terminated
for the legally leaking information from the investigation. In December,
there is a whole new trant of intelligence that comes
in that shows that the things that Christopher Steel was
(11:21):
saying isn't true. And on top of that, the FBI's
analytical team has gone through the doss a line by
line and they created a spreadsheet. You and I talked
about this on your show four or five six years
ago when we first broke to the spreadsheet and they
went through and they couldn't find a single line that
was accurate, and they found many lines that simply could
(11:42):
be disproven. So by the time December rolls around and
they're authorizing the seconde warrant, the visa warrant, there is
overwhelming evidence inside the FBI that Christopher Steel's document is
a bad document, a bad intelligence product, something the fis
of court should not be relying on. Instead of telling
that to the court, they try to sustain the notion
(12:05):
that this is the credible document. And I think a
lot of people now, people who are investigating this now Sean,
they believe that Comi's motive, possibly in December of twenty sixteen,
to try to squeeze the Steele do'sse into the Intelligence
Committe assessment, to get the CIA and the NSA to
kind of put their name into it or to improter
to it. They have been an effort to try to
(12:26):
protect himself with the Viser Court, which is he knew
it was a bad document, or his bureau knew it
was a bad document. He wanted some other validation to
have a defense with the court. Now that's what some
people are looking at. We'll see what the ultimate evidence
shows out. But that period of December that you just
zered in is a very important period.
Speaker 3 (12:43):
So what we just hearned from James Comy is either
a lie or he signed a PIZA warrant and he
didn't know what was in it. I don't know which
would be worse. But he then was made aware of
it that it was part of the PISA application bulk
of information as a matter of fact, and he claimed
he knew nothing about the Russia probe. We know we
(13:06):
have evidence that that's a lie. Is that correct?
Speaker 2 (13:08):
Yeah? Well, we know from the Inspector General's report that
the FBI knew that the visa was bad failed to
tell the court. We know that James Comy signed the
warrant saying he had read it all and could verify
and attest to its accuracy. From that testimony you just played,
he seems to have a lot of equivocation about whether
(13:29):
he knew what he was signing. And then we now
know that the key testimony that the grand jury's reviewing
right now at Richmond, Virginia, that he didn't authorize a
leak of classified information in that same timeframe October twenty sixteen.
Speaker 1 (13:45):
That is already amazing.
Speaker 2 (13:46):
Oh people, yeah, they all.
Speaker 3 (13:48):
And as a matter of law, we get onto this
with Greg Jarrett last night. He once he knew that
the Steele dossier was unverifiable, had an obligation legally to
go back to the fires at court and say we
found out that the information was false. Let me play
another clip for you. This is him admitting to Lindsey
Graham that he wouldn't have signed the advisa warrant knowing
(14:10):
what he knows now.
Speaker 1 (14:11):
Listen, knowing then.
Speaker 5 (14:13):
What you know now about all the things that we've
come to find, would you have still signed the warrant
application against Carter Page in October, January, and April.
Speaker 2 (14:24):
No. I would want a much more complete understanding of
who we were, Thank you very much.
Speaker 1 (14:29):
But he knew. That's the point.
Speaker 2 (14:31):
I certainly knew a lot, and the fact that he
would claim he didn't know it means that he didn't
take to his responsibilities at the time seriously before the fight.
Warn't because when you fixed your name, you're telling the
court I have checked this out personally. So he's had
in many different ways. Right, He's either an ignorant FBI
director who has signed his name falsely to a document
that he's really checked us out, or he knew all
(14:52):
along what was going on and he's trying to create
the cover story afterwards. Neither one of those are going
to be flattering to the legacy of James Comy, nor
is today's potential results from the grand jury. This is
a moment of extraordinary consequence for a guy who used
to brag that he reported to a higher authority to
hire loyalty. We'll see if that loyalty involved the right truthfulness.
Speaker 3 (15:14):
Yeah, a higher honor, mister, higher honor himself. Meanwhile, you
know when he said to Lindsey Graham, knowing what you
know now, By the way, so did every other person
that signed those SPISA warrants. John Solomon, justinnews dot com Founder,
editor in chief, chief investigative reporter. This is a pretty blockbuster.
We're watching this news very closely. We'll watch today. If
(15:35):
it doesn't happen today, we'll see what happens Tuesday. It's
a very tough venue, so I'm managing people's expectations here.
Speaker 1 (15:42):
I know there's going to be a lot of fury.
Speaker 3 (15:43):
However, the Grand Conspiracy investigation by Cash Bettel has to
be watched as well.
Speaker 1 (15:49):
John Solomon, thank you, sir.
Speaker 2 (15:50):
Yeah, great to be with you, Sean, great work.
Speaker 3 (15:52):
Eight hundred nine four one shaw in our number. All right,
So we're now the Democrats are angry, Democrats are curious.
Democrats are mad and unloading on the White House because
in a memo from the Office of Management and Budget
that political published, the administration signaled that they're prepared to
(16:14):
go further than usual in terms of furloughs if there's
a government shutdown caused by the Democrats. Now anyway, there's
notices will be in addition to any furlough notices. In
other words, essential services. For example, Grandma and grandpa will
get their Social Security check, Medicaid, medicare.
Speaker 1 (16:34):
That's all.
Speaker 3 (16:35):
That'll all be up and running. Our defense or Department
of War. They will be open, they will be protecting US.
ICE agents will be on the border. Essential workers will
be there now. Historically, government shutdowns work this way. Government
employees get a free two three, four week vagation, they
come back and get back pay.
Speaker 1 (16:55):
I hope they stop that process.
Speaker 3 (16:56):
By the way, if in fact the Democrats shut it down,
Democrats are demanding a trillion dollars in news spending and
Trump said no, not doing it.
Speaker 1 (17:06):
Now.
Speaker 3 (17:07):
Democrats are saying that shutdowns are bad, but they're the
ones that are threatening to cause it. Let's just take
a trip down memory lane, shall we and listen to
Democrats talk about the bad, bad government's big bad government
shut down in the past.
Speaker 1 (17:22):
We believe in governance. We want to keep governments open.
A shutdown is very serious.
Speaker 6 (17:28):
There are real consequences when the government shuts down. It
harms our national security, It harms our economy, and it
harms service members, veterans, retirees, and vulnerable communities.
Speaker 3 (17:42):
We all know a shutdown is unnecessary and completely avoidable.
Speaker 1 (17:46):
The tragedy here is all the civilian employees. It is
the American people who are going to suffer. Border patrol
agents will not be paid.
Speaker 2 (17:56):
TSA agents will not be paid. Small businesses will be hurt.
Speaker 4 (18:01):
Not only is it irresponsible and purposely misleading, it is
dangerous precedent to be threatening a shutdown.
Speaker 1 (18:10):
I'm worried about our air controllers, those in the military.
Speaker 7 (18:13):
We have over almost forty thousand in the military, as
well as personnel who work in the military, and they
won't have checks.
Speaker 3 (18:20):
I mean, this is this is real, the real people's
lives at stake.
Speaker 4 (18:25):
It is not normal to hold eight hundred thousand workers
paychecks hostage.
Speaker 1 (18:29):
It is not normal to shut down the government when
we don't get what we want.
Speaker 3 (18:33):
Our troops deserve better, our children deserve better, and the
American people deserve better.
Speaker 2 (18:40):
These chaos agents, they don't have a plan bet they
just want to see everything burning. Shutdown is really is
an extremist policy designed to appeal to an extremist base
and hold the whole country hospital. Keep this shutdown. You
know who's not to feel to pay?
Speaker 1 (18:54):
You know who?
Speaker 3 (18:55):
It hurts you out now all of a sudden they
push for a government shutdown.
Speaker 1 (19:01):
You just can't make it up. It's such hypocrisy, uh Sean.
Speaker 3 (19:07):
If you want to be a part of the program,
let's say, Hi, did NICKI is in Louisiana, Nikki High?
Speaker 1 (19:13):
How are you glad you called?
Speaker 2 (19:14):
Oh?
Speaker 4 (19:15):
Yes, I'm a leado of an ICE agent. And the
way that the media and outlets of then portraying ICE
agents has has been so irresponsible, and it's really scaring
me because I mean, I raised a family, you know,
with a dad ICE agent, and the things that we
had to go through, and as as you know, people
(19:38):
moving from New York to the border and my kids
growing up in that area. It's it's we went through
a lot, and we're not enemies to illegals. All their
friends were were illegal who came in and we love them.
And the agents are so caring and they're such eight
(20:00):
people and they're so kind, and it's just really it's
so irresponsible to portray them in a light where they're
just not human when when they better than anybody understand
what they average illegal goes through, and they want absolutely
no part in discriminating against them or hurting them in
any way. I mean, they're only there to really catch
(20:21):
the child pornographers. I mean I talk to my husband.
We had the closest of marriages, and he told me
everything that he did in it was scary to hear
that these people are coming and you know, and they're hurting.
They're hurting their own community, and we are in that community.
You know, ten miles from our house, it would be beheadings,
and you know, my kids would go to school and
I'd wonder, oh my gosh, what's you know, what's going
(20:43):
to happen there. There's a lot of danger on the
border and it's just to think that, I say, a
thing could be killed because of all of that, because
these people are not understanding that that you know, we
have friends that are illegals, that we love them.
Speaker 1 (20:58):
And if ather's I have no problem with immigration. I'm
the product of immigration.
Speaker 3 (21:04):
All four of my grandparents came to America at the
turn of the last century from Ireland. Is it really
too much to ask people to do it legally? Is
it really too much to ask that we vet you
and make sure you don't have radical associations. Is it
really too much to ask post COVID that we have
(21:25):
a health check? Is it really too much to ask
that you not be a financial burden on the American people?
The reckless, irresponsible, dangerous rhetoric of the left, and I
would argue newsome part of it, you know, calling it authoritarianism, etc.
You know, meanwhile, the sanctuary state of California is aiding
(21:48):
in a bedding and providing benefits for people that did
not respect our laws, borders, and sovereignty. And then Gavin
of course signs this reckless, dangerous, irresponsible bill where ICE
agents can't wear masks, which essentially puts them in a
position to be docks. But he exempts California Highway Patrol
(22:10):
which guard him, just like he exempted himself by going
to the French laundry, just like he exempted his kids
by sending them to private school so they could have
in person learning while the rest of California, you know,
everyone else's kids were learning remote. Or Jasmine Crockett. When
I see ICE, I sye slave patrols or Tim Walls,
(22:31):
Donald Trump's modern day gestapo, or mayor Karen Bass accusing
ICE and Trump at Homeland Security Apparatus of conducting a
reign of terrorism or terror or Brandon Johnson comparing federal
immigration enforcement to terrorism, or Michelle Woo in Massachusetts, the
(22:53):
Boston mayor, you know, comparing them to Nazis and ICE
agents enforcing federal lawness sanctuary city, you know, comparing it
to a neo Nazi organization, or or representative John Larson,
after ICE operations in his district, he called federal immigration
forces Trump's personal secret police, the secret the SS, the Gestapo.
(23:18):
You know, it's it's unbelievable, it's dangerous, it's reckless. And
if you look at this shooter in Dallas with you know,
the shellcasings and the anti ICE message, Kee, I wonder
where some of these ideas may have come from. I
just wonder out loud. Anyway, people like your husband were
a hero, Nikki, God bless you eight hundred nine four
(23:40):
one Sean, if you want to be a part of
the program. Fletcher is in Texas. God bless Texas. Fletcher.
Speaker 2 (23:45):
How are you good?
Speaker 7 (23:46):
How are you doing?
Speaker 1 (23:47):
I'm good? What's on your mind?
Speaker 4 (23:48):
Well?
Speaker 7 (23:48):
I wanted to talk about Charlie Kirk. And the reason
I wanted to bring this up is because of the
violence yesterday in Dallas. I live in Houston. But the
thing I don't think people are really getting or don't
really want to discuss about it is the is the
reason why Charlie Kirk was assassinated. People will keep blowing
it off like it's it was something he said, and
(24:09):
it's not. I mean a lot of people said the
same things you did. Bill O'Reilly said the same things.
Michael Knowles, then Shapiro, the list goes on and on.
It wasn't what he said, it was who he was
talking to. He was talking to young people, and that's
what scares the Democrats because that's their demographic. That's who
they keep going after. That's who they want to indoctrinate.
(24:30):
And so you know, if you think that, you know,
the rhetoric that comes out of these Democrat mouths is reckless,
and that you know, they just don't seem to get
it what they're doing. They know exactly what they're doing.
They knew that somebody was going to take a shot
at him.
Speaker 2 (24:45):
I mean, you look at when.
Speaker 7 (24:46):
The rhetoric started ramping up. And this has to do
with education. It was right about the time that the
Department of Education was getting defunded, and it really ramped
up even more in July and August when Donald Trump
started cutting off funding to some of these Ivy League
university We're talking about hundreds of billions of dollars with
the money here that gets eventually funneled back into Democrat hands.
(25:09):
So do you think they were just being reckless. That
ain't the case at all. They knew what they were doing.
Speaker 1 (25:13):
Well, there's no doubt.
Speaker 3 (25:15):
I think what made Charlie's mission particularly special is the
fact that he go into these hostile environments and we
got to remember the we've become so accustomed to the
indoctrination and that these have become in doctrination centers.
Speaker 1 (25:32):
You know, think about this.
Speaker 3 (25:34):
How many kids on college campuses here a message from
a peer that, you know, it's a good idea to
get involved in a church. How many of them hear
a message that hookup culture is not good for you.
How many of them here a message you know, not
to do drugs. How many of them hear a message
on how to respect women and how to women and
(25:57):
men should get along and treat each other. You know,
how many hear a message, don't be the kid throwing
up in the bushes at a frat party. It's it's
not usual. And that is a threat institutionally to these
these indoctrination centers. And that's what made Charlie so effective.
You know, if there's a silver lining, and how do
(26:19):
you ever tell Erica Kirk there's a silver lining?
Speaker 1 (26:22):
But she knows it. It's true. It's that it is.
Speaker 3 (26:26):
They now have applications for what one hundred and twenty
some one thousand new chapters of Turning Point USA.
Speaker 1 (26:33):
Is you know that they have no idea.
Speaker 3 (26:37):
What they did to Charlie is you know, I'll quote
Chuck Schumer on the steps of the Supreme Court, They've
unleashed a whirlwind of new activists and people on college
campuses that will hear a very different message when they
should be hearing in the classroom. But they're now going
to hear regularly. And that's that is an incredible legacy
(26:57):
of a great man. Charlie Kirk, appreciate the call, my friend,
eight hundred nine four one, Sean. If you want to
be a part of the program, it's our busy phones
eight hundred nine four one Sean our number. If you
want to be a part of the program. Let's say
hi to Jay. He's in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania hanging
out with Linda. What's up, Jay? How are you hi?
Speaker 2 (27:18):
How you doing? It's great, honor, what's going on? I
was just wondering with the California law and everything, that's
just pretty much a shureboot, right, because they really can't
do anything because ICE is a federal agency.
Speaker 3 (27:31):
Correct, Well, how stupid is that they made such a
fanfare out of it on Saturday Gavin Newsom did. And
not only does it not take effect till January A,
but b it is unconstitutional. There is a supremacy clause.
The jurisdiction to enforce federal law is with the federal government,
not with state governments. And every ICE official from Tom
(27:55):
Homer and Christy Nome and all these people, I've interviewed
them all and they all say the same thing.
Speaker 1 (28:00):
They're not changing the thing. It's it's it's and nor
should they.
Speaker 3 (28:05):
But I will tell you this, we need to thorough
debate investigation into states and cities that have sanctuary state
and city policies, and we've got to ask how is
that not aiding and abetting those people and actually using
taxpayer money to benefit people that didn't respect our laws, borders,
(28:30):
and sovereignty, because you know what that to me, that
makes them complicit. Anyway, I'm just up on the clock.
I do appreciate your call. God bless you. Eight hundred
and nine four one Sean. If you want to be
a part of the program,
Well we have come in. I wanna way I get
sing you a conscious sound, will I'll be entire and
if you want a little banging and y ain't come along.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
When we see them trying to chill speech of jokesters,
when we're seeing all of this, that is a playbook
out of.
Speaker 3 (00:25):
Hitler, and I won't deny it.
Speaker 4 (00:27):
At my speech on the ellipse a tyrant, we used
to compare the strength of our democracy to communist dictators.
Speaker 1 (00:35):
That's what we're dealing with right now, Donald Trump, these
are the two things I got from the United Nations.
Speaker 3 (00:40):
A bad escalator and a bad teleprompter.
Speaker 2 (00:43):
Tradom is back in style. Welcome, We're coming to your.
Speaker 1 (00:54):
Don't way I gets and saying you a conscious son.
Speaker 3 (01:00):
Hannity Show more I'm the scenes, information on freaking news
and more bold inspired solutions for America.
Speaker 1 (01:09):
All right, thanks.
Speaker 3 (01:10):
Scott chan An Hour two Sean Hennity Show, toll free.
Our number is eight hundred and ninety four one Sean
if you want to be a part of the program.
Very interesting, how events were unfolding yesterday and MSDNC, they're
the ones that broke the story about about James call
(01:30):
me and the fact that he may be indicted. Also,
we have the issue of whether or not there might
be an incitement coming for Letitia James. But the whole
thing is, if you if you look at the timing
what's actually going on, it's pretty interesting. In my view,
that probably means that call me got what's called a
target letter, hence the leak. And then again this is
(01:54):
speculation on my part, but hence I would argue an
educated guess the leak to MSDNC probably told that charges
would be filed, probably knows what it's about false statements
to Congress. Now, yesterday the grand jury was not meeting.
They have been meeting today. We're waiting to see if
(02:14):
we hear any news later today because if there's going
to be an indictment, and I don't know if there is,
I'd say maybe the odds probably are sixty percent when
you look at the venue in which you know, this
grand jury is located in Virginia, Northern Virginia. But they're
meeting today. The other day that it could happen would
(02:35):
be next Tuesday. They do have one problem on this
aspect of it, and that is the statue of limitations
would run out later next week, because they're talking about
lying to Congress in September of twenty twenty, and the
month is coming to an end, and that means the
statute of limitations would be up now. If, in fact,
(02:57):
Cash Pattel, our FBI director, goes forward with his investigation
into a grand conspiracy, and we have talked at length
about this, this statute of limitations would not be applicable.
That would mean you can go all the way back
to Hillary Clinton and her top secret classified information on
our server. You can work your way through the lies
(03:21):
and you know, the dirty Russian disinformation dossier that was
bought and paid for by Hillary becoming the base basis
of PISA warrence. That would lead you through you know,
the second you know, after we had career senior intel
officials given assessment of the twenty sixteen election, and then
Obama didn't like it. According to reports, he himself ordered
(03:44):
his top lieutenants that would be Brennan and Clapper to
come up with a new intelligence assessment. They contradicted the
real intelligence assessment. Then it would lead through a grand
conspiracy into twenty twenty. And that is the FBI pre
bunking the very real Hunter Biden lineaptop that they verified
as authentic. In March of twenty twenty. They spent the
(04:06):
entire summer meeting weekly with big tech, big tech and
social media companies telling them, oh, you're likely going to
be victims of disinformation in the twenty twenty presidential campaign,
leading into all of the lawfare through twenty twenty four.
From twenty twenty to twenty twenty four, that would be
the Grand Conspiracy investigations. Under those circumstances, the Statute of
(04:28):
limitations would not apply anyway. The person I would say
has broken more stories on all of this over this
ten year period and doesn't stop. He's been unrelenting is
He's the founder, editor in chief and chief investigative reporter
for just thenews dot com. Our friend John Solomon is
(04:49):
with us, sir.
Speaker 2 (04:49):
How are you?
Speaker 3 (04:50):
I'm Will Sean, Okay, So you're as well connected as
anybody as I know. I'm assuming you might know more
than me, but I we understand that this has gone
before the grand jury today, that they didn't convene yesterday.
Do you think my theory about a target letter, my
theory about why it went to MSDNC in terms of news,
(05:12):
my theory about you know, not being a venue that
is a slam dunk, even though I think the case
is when we can play James Comer and President Trump
at a minute. But what are your thoughts?
Speaker 2 (05:26):
I think you set it up perfectly in just how
you describe it. You're exactly right. So this grand jury
is meeting in Richmond, in Virginia. Why are they bringing
the charges here? Because when James Comy last testified that
he never authorized a classifiedly, he was testifying remotely in
Virginia during the pandemic. So the proper venue is Virginia, Richmond,
(05:47):
the Eastern District of Virginia is the courthouse. Agents and
other witnesses are bringing that testimony today mostly if the
grand jury ends up a bill of indictment today or
next Tuesday, before the statute of limitations. Kind Now, the
evidence is very clear. It comes from a very powerful source.
It isn't some outsider, it isn't some agent. Years later,
looking at it, James Comy's own general counsel, James Baker,
(06:12):
told the FBI and documents we broke on your show
just a few weeks ago that he had been instructed
by Komy through his chief of staff, James or Bickie
to leak classified information in the fall of twenty sixteen,
just before the election. That is a powerful witness. It
isn't someone who's turned against Kmy. It's his phone inner
circle saying yeah, that's what happened. James Comy knows that
(06:34):
that allegation is out there in twenty nineteen and twenty
twenty because a special prosecutor looked at it. They made
the decision in nineteen and twenty that they're not going
to charge Baker for the leak, as Komy asked them
to do it. Then Komy goes back before Congress on
September thirtieth, twenty twenty, that's hence the five year statute
of limitations, and then says, I double down. I didn't
(06:57):
instruct anyone to leak a classified intelligen So after knowing
that the Evans was there, he doubled down on the denial,
something that his own inner circle says he did. That's
why this case is being brought. We'll see what it is.
In the old days, people would say Grand Jerry would
indict a ham sandwich if a prosecutor asked. But we're
not in the old days. In the era of Trump,
(07:18):
not only have judges and fbis and institutions become partisan,
but grand jury's can have partisan struggles as well. So
a indictment, even on very clear evidence, isn't always a
certain he's about to see what happens. I think that's
sixty percent guesstimate. He gave us a really good guest
of the probably what the odds are that something will
come of this?
Speaker 3 (07:39):
Let me play two clips of Jim Comy himself. One
is him claiming that he knew nothing about the Russia probe.
And this is pretty spectacular to me, considering he signed
three of the first four PIZA applications, the basis of
which we now know, the basis of which the second
(08:02):
intelligent assessment regarding the twenty sixteen election. They added the
Hillary Clinton bought and paid for Russian disinformation dossier. But
this is him trying to claim he knew nothing about
the Russia probe.
Speaker 5 (08:15):
Listen in October, when the warrant was submitted, the application
was submitted. What effort had been made to verify the
dossier in October?
Speaker 2 (08:27):
I don't know specifically, So.
Speaker 5 (08:29):
In October is clear, mister Comy there was no effort
to verify the dossier before it was given to the court.
Speaker 2 (08:37):
Do you agree with that? I don't know the yes.
I don't remember learning anything additional about Steel's sources, not
that I recall now. I don't remember or.
Speaker 5 (08:45):
Ever were you aware that in December twenty sixteen, the
CIA tells the FBI they characterized the dossier as Internet rumor.
Speaker 1 (08:57):
They don't recall any informed of that question.
Speaker 3 (09:00):
And John Solomon did, in fact James Calemy sign the
first pize application in October twenty sixteen despy on one
carter page, but also give them a backdoor into all
things Trump world? And did they use Hillary Clinton's bought
and paid for Russian disinformation dossier as the basis for
(09:22):
that warrant?
Speaker 1 (09:22):
A big part of the basis for that warrant?
Speaker 2 (09:25):
Oh? Absolutely, yes, he did sign the first one and
the second one in December. Why is that important? In
December we now have these new explosive documents from the
CIA director John Radcliffe, the Odie and I Tulci Gabbert,
and documents from Caspertel. What did they show? They show
that it was James Comy himself that was trying to
(09:47):
force the Steele dossi into the intelligence community. Assessment so
that they can make some claim that Donald Trump was
in bed with Russell, even though all the evidence proved otherwise.
He was still trying to go He not only knew
what was in the Steel dassay, he was one of
its largest proponents, trying to impose it on the rest
of the intelligence community. And that's not that's people like
(10:08):
Jay John Brennan saying that in documents and emails, Comy's
entire description his hands off. I don't know much about this.
It's just not true when you look at the actual document.
Speaker 1 (10:20):
Didn't he sign three of the four or fives of Warrens.
Speaker 2 (10:23):
Yeah, he signs the third one in April, and then
he fired in May. And then the last one, I
think it gets signed by Indy McCabe.
Speaker 3 (10:30):
And wasn't Christopher Steele, you know, wasn't he pushed out
of being a source for the FBI prior to the
signing of the second one.
Speaker 2 (10:40):
That's exactly right. There are three major warning signs in
the time that this happens. In September of twenty sixteen,
the CIA first warned the FBI that the Steel's circle
of sources, if you can call him that, which were
mostly cutting people that they had been compromised potentially by
Russian oligarchs, and he needed to be revalidated. They then
(11:01):
submit the first warrant, the search warrant. They get it
approved on November first of twenty sixteen, Christopher Steel's terminated
for the legally leaking information from the investigation. In December,
there is a whole new trant of intelligence that comes
in that shows that the things that Christopher Steel was
(11:21):
saying isn't true. And on top of that, the FBI's
analytical team has gone through the doss a line by
line and they created a spreadsheet. You and I talked
about this on your show four or five six years
ago when we first broke to the spreadsheet and they
went through and they couldn't find a single line that
was accurate, and they found many lines that simply could
(11:42):
be disproven. So by the time December rolls around and
they're authorizing the seconde warrant, the visa warrant, there is
overwhelming evidence inside the FBI that Christopher Steel's document is
a bad document, a bad intelligence product, something the fis
of court should not be relying on. Instead of telling
that to the court, they try to sustain the notion
(12:05):
that this is the credible document. And I think a
lot of people now, people who are investigating this now Sean,
they believe that Comi's motive, possibly in December of twenty sixteen,
to try to squeeze the Steele do'sse into the Intelligence
Committe assessment, to get the CIA and the NSA to
kind of put their name into it or to improter
to it. They have been an effort to try to
(12:26):
protect himself with the Viser Court, which is he knew
it was a bad document, or his bureau knew it
was a bad document. He wanted some other validation to
have a defense with the court. Now that's what some
people are looking at. We'll see what the ultimate evidence
shows out. But that period of December that you just
zered in is a very important period.
Speaker 3 (12:43):
So what we just hearned from James Comy is either
a lie or he signed a PIZA warrant and he
didn't know what was in it. I don't know which
would be worse. But he then was made aware of
it that it was part of the PISA application bulk
of information as a matter of fact, and he claimed
he knew nothing about the Russia probe. We know we
(13:06):
have evidence that that's a lie. Is that correct?
Speaker 2 (13:08):
Yeah? Well, we know from the Inspector General's report that
the FBI knew that the visa was bad failed to
tell the court. We know that James Comy signed the
warrant saying he had read it all and could verify
and attest to its accuracy. From that testimony you just played,
he seems to have a lot of equivocation about whether
(13:29):
he knew what he was signing. And then we now
know that the key testimony that the grand jury's reviewing
right now at Richmond, Virginia, that he didn't authorize a
leak of classified information in that same timeframe October twenty sixteen.
Speaker 1 (13:45):
That is already amazing.
Speaker 2 (13:46):
Oh people, yeah, they all.
Speaker 3 (13:48):
And as a matter of law, we get onto this
with Greg Jarrett last night. He once he knew that
the Steele dossier was unverifiable, had an obligation legally to
go back to the fires at court and say we
found out that the information was false. Let me play
another clip for you. This is him admitting to Lindsey
Graham that he wouldn't have signed the advisa warrant knowing
(14:10):
what he knows now.
Speaker 1 (14:11):
Listen, knowing then.
Speaker 5 (14:13):
What you know now about all the things that we've
come to find, would you have still signed the warrant
application against Carter Page in October, January, and April.
Speaker 2 (14:24):
No. I would want a much more complete understanding of
who we were, Thank you very much.
Speaker 1 (14:29):
But he knew. That's the point.
Speaker 2 (14:31):
I certainly knew a lot, and the fact that he
would claim he didn't know it means that he didn't
take to his responsibilities at the time seriously before the fight.
Warn't because when you fixed your name, you're telling the
court I have checked this out personally. So he's had
in many different ways. Right, He's either an ignorant FBI
director who has signed his name falsely to a document
that he's really checked us out, or he knew all
(14:52):
along what was going on and he's trying to create
the cover story afterwards. Neither one of those are going
to be flattering to the legacy of James Comy, nor
is today's potential results from the grand jury. This is
a moment of extraordinary consequence for a guy who used
to brag that he reported to a higher authority to
hire loyalty. We'll see if that loyalty involved the right truthfulness.
Speaker 3 (15:14):
Yeah, a higher honor, mister, higher honor himself. Meanwhile, you
know when he said to Lindsey Graham, knowing what you
know now, By the way, so did every other person
that signed those SPISA warrants. John Solomon, justinnews dot com Founder,
editor in chief, chief investigative reporter. This is a pretty blockbuster.
We're watching this news very closely. We'll watch today. If
(15:35):
it doesn't happen today, we'll see what happens Tuesday. It's
a very tough venue, so I'm managing people's expectations here.
Speaker 1 (15:42):
I know there's going to be a lot of fury.
Speaker 3 (15:43):
However, the Grand Conspiracy investigation by Cash Bettel has to
be watched as well.
Speaker 1 (15:49):
John Solomon, thank you, sir.
Speaker 2 (15:50):
Yeah, great to be with you, Sean, great work.
Speaker 3 (15:52):
Eight hundred nine four one shaw in our number. All right,
So we're now the Democrats are angry, Democrats are curious.
Democrats are mad and unloading on the White House because
in a memo from the Office of Management and Budget
that political published, the administration signaled that they're prepared to
(16:14):
go further than usual in terms of furloughs if there's
a government shutdown caused by the Democrats. Now anyway, there's
notices will be in addition to any furlough notices. In
other words, essential services. For example, Grandma and grandpa will
get their Social Security check, Medicaid, medicare.
Speaker 1 (16:34):
That's all.
Speaker 3 (16:35):
That'll all be up and running. Our defense or Department
of War. They will be open, they will be protecting US.
ICE agents will be on the border. Essential workers will
be there now. Historically, government shutdowns work this way. Government
employees get a free two three, four week vagation, they
come back and get back pay.
Speaker 1 (16:55):
I hope they stop that process.
Speaker 3 (16:56):
By the way, if in fact the Democrats shut it down,
Democrats are demanding a trillion dollars in news spending and
Trump said no, not doing it.
Speaker 1 (17:06):
Now.
Speaker 3 (17:07):
Democrats are saying that shutdowns are bad, but they're the
ones that are threatening to cause it. Let's just take
a trip down memory lane, shall we and listen to
Democrats talk about the bad, bad government's big bad government
shut down in the past.
Speaker 1 (17:22):
We believe in governance. We want to keep governments open.
A shutdown is very serious.
Speaker 6 (17:28):
There are real consequences when the government shuts down. It
harms our national security, It harms our economy, and it
harms service members, veterans, retirees, and vulnerable communities.
Speaker 3 (17:42):
We all know a shutdown is unnecessary and completely avoidable.
Speaker 1 (17:46):
The tragedy here is all the civilian employees. It is
the American people who are going to suffer. Border patrol
agents will not be paid.
Speaker 2 (17:56):
TSA agents will not be paid. Small businesses will be hurt.
Speaker 4 (18:01):
Not only is it irresponsible and purposely misleading, it is
dangerous precedent to be threatening a shutdown.
Speaker 1 (18:10):
I'm worried about our air controllers, those in the military.
Speaker 7 (18:13):
We have over almost forty thousand in the military, as
well as personnel who work in the military, and they
won't have checks.
Speaker 3 (18:20):
I mean, this is this is real, the real people's
lives at stake.
Speaker 4 (18:25):
It is not normal to hold eight hundred thousand workers
paychecks hostage.
Speaker 1 (18:29):
It is not normal to shut down the government when
we don't get what we want.
Speaker 3 (18:33):
Our troops deserve better, our children deserve better, and the
American people deserve better.
Speaker 2 (18:40):
These chaos agents, they don't have a plan bet they
just want to see everything burning. Shutdown is really is
an extremist policy designed to appeal to an extremist base
and hold the whole country hospital. Keep this shutdown. You
know who's not to feel to pay?
Speaker 1 (18:54):
You know who?
Speaker 3 (18:55):
It hurts you out now all of a sudden they
push for a government shutdown.
Speaker 1 (19:01):
You just can't make it up. It's such hypocrisy, uh Sean.
Speaker 3 (19:07):
If you want to be a part of the program,
let's say, Hi, did NICKI is in Louisiana, Nikki High?
Speaker 1 (19:13):
How are you glad you called?
Speaker 2 (19:14):
Oh?
Speaker 4 (19:15):
Yes, I'm a leado of an ICE agent. And the
way that the media and outlets of then portraying ICE
agents has has been so irresponsible, and it's really scaring
me because I mean, I raised a family, you know,
with a dad ICE agent, and the things that we
had to go through, and as as you know, people
(19:38):
moving from New York to the border and my kids
growing up in that area. It's it's we went through
a lot, and we're not enemies to illegals. All their
friends were were illegal who came in and we love them.
And the agents are so caring and they're such eight
(20:00):
people and they're so kind, and it's just really it's
so irresponsible to portray them in a light where they're
just not human when when they better than anybody understand
what they average illegal goes through, and they want absolutely
no part in discriminating against them or hurting them in
any way. I mean, they're only there to really catch
(20:21):
the child pornographers. I mean I talk to my husband.
We had the closest of marriages, and he told me
everything that he did in it was scary to hear
that these people are coming and you know, and they're hurting.
They're hurting their own community, and we are in that community.
You know, ten miles from our house, it would be beheadings,
and you know, my kids would go to school and
I'd wonder, oh my gosh, what's you know, what's going
(20:43):
to happen there. There's a lot of danger on the
border and it's just to think that, I say, a
thing could be killed because of all of that, because
these people are not understanding that that you know, we
have friends that are illegals, that we love them.
Speaker 1 (20:58):
And if ather's I have no problem with immigration. I'm
the product of immigration.
Speaker 3 (21:04):
All four of my grandparents came to America at the
turn of the last century from Ireland. Is it really
too much to ask people to do it legally? Is
it really too much to ask that we vet you
and make sure you don't have radical associations. Is it
really too much to ask post COVID that we have
(21:25):
a health check? Is it really too much to ask
that you not be a financial burden on the American people?
The reckless, irresponsible, dangerous rhetoric of the left, and I
would argue newsome part of it, you know, calling it authoritarianism, etc.
You know, meanwhile, the sanctuary state of California is aiding
(21:48):
in a bedding and providing benefits for people that did
not respect our laws, borders, and sovereignty. And then Gavin
of course signs this reckless, dangerous, irresponsible bill where ICE
agents can't wear masks, which essentially puts them in a
position to be docks. But he exempts California Highway Patrol
(22:10):
which guard him, just like he exempted himself by going
to the French laundry, just like he exempted his kids
by sending them to private school so they could have
in person learning while the rest of California, you know,
everyone else's kids were learning remote. Or Jasmine Crockett. When
I see ICE, I sye slave patrols or Tim Walls,
(22:31):
Donald Trump's modern day gestapo, or mayor Karen Bass accusing
ICE and Trump at Homeland Security Apparatus of conducting a
reign of terrorism or terror or Brandon Johnson comparing federal
immigration enforcement to terrorism, or Michelle Woo in Massachusetts, the
(22:53):
Boston mayor, you know, comparing them to Nazis and ICE
agents enforcing federal lawness sanctuary city, you know, comparing it
to a neo Nazi organization, or or representative John Larson,
after ICE operations in his district, he called federal immigration
forces Trump's personal secret police, the secret the SS, the Gestapo.
(23:18):
You know, it's it's unbelievable, it's dangerous, it's reckless. And
if you look at this shooter in Dallas with you know,
the shellcasings and the anti ICE message, Kee, I wonder
where some of these ideas may have come from. I
just wonder out loud. Anyway, people like your husband were
a hero, Nikki, God bless you eight hundred nine four
(23:40):
one Sean, if you want to be a part of
the program. Fletcher is in Texas. God bless Texas. Fletcher.
Speaker 2 (23:45):
How are you good?
Speaker 7 (23:46):
How are you doing?
Speaker 1 (23:47):
I'm good? What's on your mind?
Speaker 4 (23:48):
Well?
Speaker 7 (23:48):
I wanted to talk about Charlie Kirk. And the reason
I wanted to bring this up is because of the
violence yesterday in Dallas. I live in Houston. But the
thing I don't think people are really getting or don't
really want to discuss about it is the is the
reason why Charlie Kirk was assassinated. People will keep blowing
it off like it's it was something he said, and
(24:09):
it's not. I mean a lot of people said the
same things you did. Bill O'Reilly said the same things.
Michael Knowles, then Shapiro, the list goes on and on.
It wasn't what he said, it was who he was
talking to. He was talking to young people, and that's
what scares the Democrats because that's their demographic. That's who
they keep going after. That's who they want to indoctrinate.
(24:30):
And so you know, if you think that, you know,
the rhetoric that comes out of these Democrat mouths is reckless,
and that you know, they just don't seem to get
it what they're doing. They know exactly what they're doing.
They knew that somebody was going to take a shot
at him.
Speaker 2 (24:45):
I mean, you look at when.
Speaker 7 (24:46):
The rhetoric started ramping up. And this has to do
with education. It was right about the time that the
Department of Education was getting defunded, and it really ramped
up even more in July and August when Donald Trump
started cutting off funding to some of these Ivy League
university We're talking about hundreds of billions of dollars with
the money here that gets eventually funneled back into Democrat hands.
(25:09):
So do you think they were just being reckless. That
ain't the case at all. They knew what they were doing.
Speaker 1 (25:13):
Well, there's no doubt.
Speaker 3 (25:15):
I think what made Charlie's mission particularly special is the
fact that he go into these hostile environments and we
got to remember the we've become so accustomed to the
indoctrination and that these have become in doctrination centers.
Speaker 1 (25:32):
You know, think about this.
Speaker 3 (25:34):
How many kids on college campuses here a message from
a peer that, you know, it's a good idea to
get involved in a church. How many of them hear
a message that hookup culture is not good for you.
How many of them here a message you know, not
to do drugs. How many of them hear a message
on how to respect women and how to women and
(25:57):
men should get along and treat each other. You know,
how many hear a message, don't be the kid throwing
up in the bushes at a frat party. It's it's
not usual. And that is a threat institutionally to these
these indoctrination centers. And that's what made Charlie so effective.
You know, if there's a silver lining, and how do
(26:19):
you ever tell Erica Kirk there's a silver lining?
Speaker 1 (26:22):
But she knows it. It's true. It's that it is.
Speaker 3 (26:26):
They now have applications for what one hundred and twenty
some one thousand new chapters of Turning Point USA.
Speaker 1 (26:33):
Is you know that they have no idea.
Speaker 3 (26:37):
What they did to Charlie is you know, I'll quote
Chuck Schumer on the steps of the Supreme Court, They've
unleashed a whirlwind of new activists and people on college
campuses that will hear a very different message when they
should be hearing in the classroom. But they're now going
to hear regularly. And that's that is an incredible legacy
(26:57):
of a great man. Charlie Kirk, appreciate the call, my friend,
eight hundred nine four one, Sean. If you want to
be a part of the program, it's our busy phones
eight hundred nine four one Sean our number. If you
want to be a part of the program. Let's say
hi to Jay. He's in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania hanging
out with Linda. What's up, Jay? How are you hi?
Speaker 2 (27:18):
How you doing? It's great, honor, what's going on? I
was just wondering with the California law and everything, that's
just pretty much a shureboot, right, because they really can't
do anything because ICE is a federal agency.
Speaker 3 (27:31):
Correct, Well, how stupid is that they made such a
fanfare out of it on Saturday Gavin Newsom did. And
not only does it not take effect till January A,
but b it is unconstitutional. There is a supremacy clause.
The jurisdiction to enforce federal law is with the federal government,
not with state governments. And every ICE official from Tom
(27:55):
Homer and Christy Nome and all these people, I've interviewed
them all and they all say the same thing.
Speaker 1 (28:00):
They're not changing the thing. It's it's it's and nor
should they.
Speaker 3 (28:05):
But I will tell you this, we need to thorough
debate investigation into states and cities that have sanctuary state
and city policies, and we've got to ask how is
that not aiding and abetting those people and actually using
taxpayer money to benefit people that didn't respect our laws, borders,
(28:30):
and sovereignty, because you know what that to me, that
makes them complicit. Anyway, I'm just up on the clock.
I do appreciate your call. God bless you. Eight hundred
and nine four one Sean. If you want to be
a part of the program,
The Sean Hannity Show News
Host
Sean Hannity
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
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.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.