March 17, 2025 • 26 mins
David Schoen, former counsel for President Trump and Civil Liberties Attorney and Gregg Jarrett, Fox News Legal Analyst and Best Selling Author, discuss the use of Alien Enemies Act by President Trump’s team. Trump and his team decided to ignore this repulsive ruling which would have put innocent Americans at risk, while favoring the TDA gang members here illegally
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):
I thanks Scott chan An Hour two Sean Hannity Show,
eight hundred and nine to four one, Shawn our number
if you want to be a part of the program.
We have a problem, and that is the Democrats. What
they cannot get done electorally at the ballot box, that
they can't get done legislatively, they run to liberal courts
and they hope to enact their agenda, install Trump's agenda.
(00:26):
The agenda, which by the way, is like an eighty
twenty issue at this point, which is the deportation of
known criminals that we have inside the country. It's not
a complicated issue. And anyway, it has now become a
battle within the courts, and it is it's successful. I mean,
the president has been successful. But anyway, the administration deported
(00:48):
nearly three hundred members of the Trend de Aragua gang
under what's called the Alien Enemies Act. And you have
a federal judge trying to blow because it hasn't been used,
you know, in a couple of hundred years, but it's
still on the books.
Speaker 2 (01:05):
It is still the law of the land.
Speaker 1 (01:07):
And we have one congressman that and has now moved
forward with an effort to move forward and impeach the
judge involved in this. Pam bondis slamming this DC trial
judge who blocked Trump from using the Alien Enemies Act
to deport Trenda or Ragwag gang members. And you know
the reason. You know that the judges is giving here
(01:28):
this delay makes absolutely no sense at all, and it
is basically the history of the federal judiciary system. And
this is this is where liberals go when they can't
win at the battle box. This is where they can't win.
What they do when they can't win any other way.
Do I think in the end that Donald Trump is
(01:49):
going to win? I do, And we'll have to see,
you know, how this plays out over time. But in
the meantime, we're kind of stuck with where we are.
And by the way, the President did thank the President
of l Salvador for taking gang members that were deported.
And we know that Elon Musk and Congress and elected
(02:12):
officials have asked for the impeachment of this judge that
that scuttle Trump's order. El Salvador's Trump friendly president, you know,
mocks this. This US judges deportation pause. And you've got
Jasmine Crockett along with as they discussed in the last hour,
AOC now leading the Democratic Party as they try to
(02:33):
I guess oppose Chucky Schumer anyway, Crockett attacking the Trump
administration for deporting members of trenda Ragua, tell me how
that makes any sense. And anyway, it's driving down immigration.
And we'll see how this plays out in the courts.
It's it's going to be interesting. I think that in
(02:53):
the end that Trump people win. Anyway. President Trump defended
the use of the l Enemies Act. And this is
what he said.
Speaker 3 (03:02):
This isn't that alien Enemies actors as making in both
three other times they were all during time of the war.
You feel that you're using it appropriately.
Speaker 4 (03:10):
Right now, this is a time of war.
Speaker 5 (03:11):
Chris Biden allowed millions of people, many of them criminals,
many of them at the highest level. They empty jails
out of the Nation's emptied their jails into the United States.
It's an invasion. And these are criminals, many many criminals, murderers,
drug dealers at the highest level, drug lords, now people
(03:33):
from mental institutions. That's an invasion. They invaded our country.
Speaker 6 (03:39):
So this isn't in.
Speaker 2 (03:40):
That sense, and this is war now.
Speaker 1 (03:42):
Tom Homan responded to our reporter about the President using
the Alien Enemies Act.
Speaker 2 (03:48):
Here is what he said.
Speaker 3 (03:49):
You say to those who claimed you're using a two
hundred year old law to circumvent you presents no law.
Speaker 7 (03:54):
He's not as old as Constitution.
Speaker 4 (03:55):
We still pay attention to that, don't we?
Speaker 1 (03:57):
Oh ouch anyway that he will further one on this
say he doesn't care if Judge's rule his actions are illegal.
Speaker 2 (04:03):
He's not going to stop anyway.
Speaker 1 (04:05):
David shown, former Council for President Trump's Civil Liberties attorney
Greg Jarrett, Fox News Legal analysts, bestselling author.
Speaker 2 (04:11):
Welcome both the view to the program. David, We'll start
with you.
Speaker 1 (04:15):
I think they are on solid ground in their argument,
and I think the President was very clear why Democrats
want to die on this hill. To put the rights
of the illegals over the safety of Americans is inexplicable
to me. But I'm having a hard time understanding that
party right now.
Speaker 8 (04:31):
One way or.
Speaker 7 (04:32):
Another, they are going to be deportable, whether it's under
the Alien Enemies Act or some other statutory basis. There
are some easier ways to go. By the way, it's
clear under a Statute eight USC. Twelve twenty seven that
these people are deportable, period, end of story. Why because
that statute tracks eight USC. Eleven eighty two, which makes
(04:52):
them inadmissible in the first place. And so, by the
way credit and Trump, it should be noted, has meant
as already categorize this gang as a foreign terrorist organization.
Speaker 6 (05:04):
Clearly under these provisions.
Speaker 7 (05:06):
Of these statutes, they're deportable. He decided to go with
the Alien Enemies Act, one would think because the president
has great authority under that act. There's even a question
from the nineteen forty eight case whether the Accords should intervene.
There hasn't been any formal declaration of war here, but
President Trump has said, as the commander in chief, that
this is the irregular warfare that they've engaged in through
(05:27):
their invasion.
Speaker 6 (05:28):
These are criminals, so.
Speaker 7 (05:28):
There should be any constituency for keeping them in the country.
Speaker 6 (05:32):
He will win one way or another.
Speaker 2 (05:34):
I agree with that. What's your assessment, Greg Jarrett?
Speaker 8 (05:37):
One hundred percent agree with both you and David. And
this is another lesson in why you should pay no
attention to the mainstream media. They would have you believe
that Trump has commandeered an obscure law to wrongfully deport
these violent gang members who are terrorists. The truth is
(05:58):
the law is not obscure. It's not being wrongfully used.
The Alien Enemies Act was passed by Congress, signed in
the law in seventeen ninety eight. It is well established.
It's never been repealed. It has been reviewed by courts
numerous times. Four different presidents have invoked it, three of
(06:20):
them Democrats in the twentieth century. And the Act is
not limited to wartime authority, is some of the media claim. Now.
Woodrow Wilson and Harriet Truman both used the Acts well
after both World wars ended. It permits the president to
remove without a hearing, what he designates to be alien
(06:44):
enemies whenever there is a declared war or a predatory incursion. Now,
what does that mean? A predatory incursion is broadly defined
in the law as entry into the US for purposes
contrary to the nation's interests or law, and that language
(07:05):
gives President Trump broad latitude to protect the safety and
security of its citizens. David mentioned in the nineteen forty
eight case US Supreme Court upheld Harry Truman's use of
the act, rule that it is completely constitutional in the
name of the case is liticky versus Watkins. And this
(07:27):
is the important part. The High Court stated that a
president's decision under the Act, and I'm quoting here precludes
judicial review of them of the order. So, in other words,
a judge cannot second guess the president.
Speaker 1 (07:45):
So would that then allow the president to move forward
regardless of what this judge's ruling says it does?
Speaker 8 (07:52):
Now they have filed for a stay in the DC
Circuit Court of Appeals pending a hearing, and you know,
I think if they're going to follow Supreme Court precedent,
the DC Circuit Court will reverse what Judge James Bosberg did.
(08:12):
You know, Federal district court judges, even pellet judges, cannot
make new laws. And as the Supreme Court said in
nineteen forty eight, this is the law of the land
and it must be followed. You cannot, as a lowly
court judge, decide you're smarter and better than the Supreme Court.
(08:36):
And so, you know, Bosberg didn't care what the Supreme
Court had previously ruled. I think he's been influenced by
his political views and perhaps personal animus toward Trump, and
he is not following the dictates of the law.
Speaker 1 (08:53):
So if we look at you know, the adverse rulings
against the Trump agenda so far. It is in keeping
with the history of what Democrats do when they lose
at the ballot box, what they can't get done legislatively,
they go to the liberal courts. And there have been
fifteen injunctions so far on the Trump agenda. Caroline Levitt
(09:14):
spoke out about this late last week. Instead fighting back
by appealing, fighting back by using the full weight to
the White House Council's Office and our lawyers at the
federal government who believed that this injunction is entirely unconstitutional.
It seems like this is now the strategy of choice,
David Chohan that the left has taken on.
Speaker 6 (09:34):
Yeah, there's no question.
Speaker 7 (09:35):
Look, we all believe, you believe certainly in the idea
of judicial with you. We have a three party system,
three part system, and that's appropriate. But it should not
go unnoticed that the court of choice generally with these
things is the District Court in DC. We have decisions
coming the same judges who you know, clearly, if the
(09:55):
name Trump was in a case presented to Judge Beryl
Howe for Examp in the DC District Court, you know
the result before you hear any of the evidence all
that that's in a perversion of our system. It can
be that all of these decisions by the judges are
then made on political grounds. Then we don't have a
three part system working properly. That's not really judicial review.
(10:16):
So for sure that's the choice here. You know, you're
going to see they don't have the numbers in Congress,
or you would have seen an impeachment movement already afoot
from AOC and that crowd. Yeah, we're going to keep
seeing this all throughout the administration.
Speaker 6 (10:31):
You can be sure.
Speaker 1 (10:33):
This activist judge, it is a US district judge actually
added in his ruling that any plane containing suspected members
of Trende Arragua that was planning to take offer that
was already in the air needed to be returned to
the US. The White House blasted the judge and said, well,
they're out of the US airspace at this point, we
have no control over it. Would that be a fair interpretation,
(10:56):
Greg Jarrett.
Speaker 8 (10:57):
Yeah, it absolutely is. And what secure is Bosberg? Let
it be known that he wanted those planes carrying the
TDA terrorists to turn around mid air return to the US,
but he didn't put that in his final written order.
Now why well, because he surely realized no judge has
(11:19):
the power to issue an order redirecting flights that are
beyond US soil and airspace airspace. But you know, his
willingness to verbalize such a lawless desire as a really
really a window into the thinking of this activist judge.
And there are several troubling aspects of his tro I mean,
(11:44):
the judge acted without bothering to hear from the government.
Second of all, you know there are five named plaintiffs
in the aclused petition. Well where are they? They're in
Texas or a DC. Judge has no jurisdiction. And third,
the exclusive remedy is a habeas corpus petition, it's not
(12:04):
a temporary restraining order. And you know, finally, this judge
sort of magically transforms the entire case into a class action,
extending his restraining order to all non citizens that might
be affected by Trump's invocation of the AEA. I mean,
(12:25):
that is judicial activism.
Speaker 2 (12:27):
Run a mock click break.
Speaker 1 (12:29):
Right back more with Greg Jared David Schoan on the
other side. Eight one hundred and ninety four one Shawn
is number. We'll get to your calls coming up in
mere moments as we continue. Let's go to our busy phones.
Let's say hi to Jeremy and Missouri. Jeremy, how are
you glad you called?
Speaker 8 (12:46):
Hey?
Speaker 6 (12:46):
Som how are you doing? I got a great age?
Speaker 2 (12:48):
What's going on?
Speaker 9 (12:49):
Yeah?
Speaker 6 (12:49):
Boy? Oh great?
Speaker 2 (12:51):
What's that?
Speaker 7 (12:51):
So?
Speaker 6 (12:52):
I was thinking maybe you Trump and Elon could all
sign the dash in a paint ten kind of personal
line to give away.
Speaker 1 (13:01):
It's a great idea. I mean I'd have to get
them to agree to it. I'm obviously I would be
the easy one to get to sign it. But it's
a great idea. It would add value to it in
my opinion, don't you think absolutely?
Speaker 6 (13:13):
I mean, you guys should do it in red, white
and blue too. You know all American car and you
know the new American president is doing the great things
that he's doing. I'm all for it. I think it'd
be amazing.
Speaker 1 (13:25):
I think it'd be amazing too. Let me let me
ponder that idea and see if I might be able
to somehow pull that off. It means i'd have to
like ship it to DC, ship it to the White House,
get it in there at a time when Elon and
the President are there, ask them to go out and
sign it and then have it shipped to Florida. Then
I'd have to sign it and then ship it to
wherever the winter happens to be, so there might be
(13:45):
a lot of shipping. I'm I'm willing to do it
if I can pull it off though. That's a great idea. Anyway,
Jeremy appreciate you call. Let's say, how to Morgan in
my free state of Florida. Morgan, how are you glad
you called? I'm good? What's going on?
Speaker 9 (13:58):
Great? I have a short and sweet and non political questions.
Speaker 2 (14:02):
I love it.
Speaker 9 (14:03):
I know that you do too. So my question is
what is your go to favorite recipe to make for dinner?
Speaker 1 (14:09):
Okay, I am very very basic for do you're specifically
asking about dinner? Most nights I have meat with a
lot of grilled onions and sometimes a light vegetable and
that's basically it. So it's either it's either steak or
chicken or a burger or pork ribs or pork chop.
Speaker 2 (14:32):
That's pretty much my staple.
Speaker 9 (14:34):
All right, So no favorite recipes?
Speaker 1 (14:36):
Well, I mean yeah, I mean if I could cook
like and eat like I used to eat, and I
really don't have a desire to do it. Usually when
I get seafood, I will get seafood out rather than
cook it in.
Speaker 2 (14:50):
But I I mean I I could whip up a
steak in no time. I get.
Speaker 1 (14:53):
I mean, I do it like it's and with chef
I q sents forget it, it's even easier.
Speaker 2 (14:58):
What's your favorite.
Speaker 9 (14:59):
Meal in Florida? I say seafood all the way.
Speaker 2 (15:03):
Okay, so what's your favorite seafood?
Speaker 9 (15:06):
Probably scallops I've been trying to master, all right, that's
not hard to master.
Speaker 1 (15:11):
It's easy to master. I like seered scallops. I like
shrimp either. I like grilled shrimp, and I like I'll
take a shrimp cocktail occasionally. I like lobster tel I
like crab legs, and I like crab claws. Those That's
about what I eat seafood wise, and I will eat
an occasional salmon or halib it.
Speaker 9 (15:32):
There you go. Well, my go to also is crabcakes.
That's one of my favorites.
Speaker 1 (15:37):
Right, well, okay, add that to my list. I like
crabcakes too, but I don't eat them very often. And
I can make a really mean crabcake too.
Speaker 9 (15:44):
Oh yeah, me too. I have a cookoff next time
you're down in Palm Coast.
Speaker 1 (15:48):
Okay, thank you, Morgan, God bless you. Glad you're out there.
Angela West, Virginia, Sean Hannity Show, Hi.
Speaker 3 (15:55):
Hi Sean. How are you today?
Speaker 2 (15:58):
I'm good? How are you this Monday? What's going on?
Speaker 3 (16:00):
I'm great. I'm just chiming in today to discuss further,
like you did last week, whether or not you should
go on the View. And I think I speak for
many many Americans to say absolutely not. I think by
going on that show, you legitimize the show. Nobody cares.
(16:21):
They're irrelevant. No one cares what celebrities think anymore and
what they say, and they speak vile things about our
president when he's trying to do the best possible job,
and all they do is tear down. I'd like to
take it a step further and ask that the executives
of Fox News stop telling us what they said today,
(16:46):
because we don't care what the View says.
Speaker 1 (16:49):
They well, sometimes it is entertaining to watch them bubble
them fizz like Alca Saltz. So we do play an
occasional clip for kicks and giggles and entertainment purposes only,
So we definitely do that.
Speaker 3 (17:01):
I'm hoping that they'll just go away silently and no
one will.
Speaker 1 (17:05):
Ever know that they Oh, they're definitely on, definitely on
cancelation Watch, like so many other shows, just like Chucky
Schumer's now on you know, cancelation watches, the Senate Minority Leader,
just like all these late night comedy shows. They're on
official cancelation Watch too. And just like a lot of
news programs on fake News CNN MSDNC. You saw the
(17:26):
bloodbath at msdn C. I mean, they're all on official
cancelation watch, right. No, it's in many ways, it's kind
of been miraculous. I'm in my twenty ninth year at
Fox and have out, you know, in spite of a
lot of people that would have predicted otherwise, maybe in
the beginning rightly, so my demise and wanting my demise,
I've outlasted all of them, and I've got a lot
(17:48):
in me and I'm continuing now for a good while.
I'm not going anywhere anytime soon that I know of.
Speaker 3 (17:54):
That's great, that's wonderful. That's what we want to hear.
And you know, I'm from this great state of West
virgin and West Virginia carried every single county for president.
Speaker 2 (18:05):
Amazing this pastime.
Speaker 3 (18:07):
This was wonderful. Yes, because years ago we used to
be democratic and that's that's we've come a long way.
Speaker 2 (18:13):
Not anymore.
Speaker 1 (18:14):
You made the you made the full transition, like Florida
and like Ohio and like a lot of other states.
And if we can convert a few more, I'd like
to see Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan, UH become reliable, reliably
red states. And if that happens, then, you know what,
the country will be given a lot better shape. On
the issue of the view that that poll is now
(18:34):
officially shut down. I won fifty to forty nine. It
was a very very close vote that almost forced me
onto that show. Thank goodness for all of you that
voted no.
Speaker 2 (18:45):
Thank you. I think Linda was trying to stack the
stack the deck.
Speaker 3 (18:50):
There, Thank goodness, because we don't want their ratings to
go up because you're on it, you know what I mean,
their ratings would because people would you.
Speaker 1 (18:58):
It was sort of a I'm in a no win
situation in that in that environment, here's the problem, and
whether whether I would have invited them on my show,
or I go on their show. Here's the problem is
they're going to lash out with their their their trumped arrangement.
They're going to say false things, and then I'm in
(19:18):
a position that I'd be never ending, non interruptive, which
my audience does not like. And they've communicated that loudly
to me over the years. Or I let them talk
and then people are mad at me. Why didn't you
fix that? Why didn't you correct them? Why didn't you
Because it's every other word I'll have to correct. So
it's it's to me. It doesn't lend itself to really
(19:39):
good television, if that makes sense. I mean I tried
to have a discussion the last time with James Carvel
and he's just fewing out things that are false, and
he said, fact check me, fact check me.
Speaker 2 (19:48):
So the next night I've fact checked them right.
Speaker 3 (19:51):
And you know, you don't want to have to just
be defense mode the whole time because they don't listen
to reason. There, they don't real irrational totally.
Speaker 1 (19:58):
There are not many Democrats right now. They're in their
right mind. We must have pity on them. Anyway, I
do appreciate the call.
Speaker 2 (20:05):
Thank you. So much for being with us Angela checking anytime? Mark?
And Ohio, what's up? Mark? How are you glad you called?
Speaker 7 (20:13):
Hey?
Speaker 4 (20:13):
Sean?
Speaker 2 (20:15):
What's going on?
Speaker 10 (20:16):
Hey? So I'm in Connecticut.
Speaker 2 (20:18):
Sorry, Hey.
Speaker 10 (20:19):
I always wanting to talk about these protests because I've
seen a ton of it, and for the regular person watching,
you really, you know, you just can't understand why they're
there and what they're doing there. But I just saw
yesterday between indeed and I forget the other one. You know,
(20:41):
the big job board that they have online, there's seven
hundred and sixty two advertisements for paid protesting just in
New York City alone. So for everybody that's watching it,
that says, how do these people think that this is okay?
Or that's okay whatever the cause is for the day,
It's all nothing.
Speaker 6 (21:02):
To do with what they're thinking.
Speaker 2 (21:04):
It's all they're getting paid, okay.
Speaker 1 (21:06):
Now, we have exposed this in the past, and that
is that there are groups that are organizing and they're
paying people, and they're moving people in, and there are
groups that are even handing out talking points and the questions,
and they're trying to sabotage Republican town halls to create
a false impression that Republicans are not being liked right
(21:29):
now when all the polls are to the contrary, And
if this is the democratic tactic, let them continue, because
you know, we have now three polls consecutively that show
their approval rating in the twenties, the lowest that's been
in decades and decades. So if that's what they want
to do, I'm okay with it. But if you're an
elected official, you do need to be on the lookout
(21:50):
a little bit and understand that these are paid protesters
and they're showing up to make you look bad.
Speaker 4 (21:57):
You know.
Speaker 1 (21:57):
Look, the reasons are just so many why the left
is losing touch with the American people and they're pulling
at all time lows. You know, there are a couple
of people that are recognizing it. One is Bill Maher.
Here's him pointing out how the Democrats have funneled all
this money to environmentalism after Biden lost Any skeptical of
(22:19):
saving the Department of Education. Oh maybe there is a
little intellectual curiosity on the left.
Speaker 4 (22:25):
Listen, The question, though, really is is the Department of
Education doing that? Is that now? They probably are doing
some good work. I'm sure they are, right what is
their budget, like two hundred billion dollars or something. But
it also looks like some of these places are just
funneling money to people who are not solving the problem.
(22:46):
I mean, I saw that story about the twenty billion
that went out the door after Biden lost the EPA.
It wasn't the EPA or was it the EPA, but
there was twenty billion dollars that they shoveled to because
Trump was coming in then they were going to reverse
all this stuff and supposedly environmental groups and they were
(23:08):
not really environmental groups and they had no experience in
doing it. Like I said before, I care about the plastics?
Speaker 2 (23:14):
Did they think?
Speaker 4 (23:14):
Do I think this money was going to get rid
of the plastics? In my brain, I do not. So
I am skeptical of the Department of Education, and I
think every Democrat who runs really needs to take on
this issue because that's your portfolio education. You've owned it
and the results aren't good.
Speaker 2 (23:31):
And he's right.
Speaker 1 (23:32):
I mean, use my example about the Department of Education.
Ten families even thirty thousand per student, good luck, they're
going to have one teacher for every five kids. Secretary
of State Mark or Rubio sparring with Margaret Brennan over
revoking you know, Mahmood Khalil's visa. Okay, be the party
of Mangioni and Khalil. That's what the Democrats are now becoming.
Speaker 11 (23:54):
And if you tell us when you apply for a visa,
I'm coming to the US to participate in Prohamas events,
that runs counter to the foreign policy interest to the
United States of America. It's that simple.
Speaker 2 (24:05):
So you lied, you came.
Speaker 11 (24:06):
If you had told us that you were going to
do that, we never would have.
Speaker 4 (24:08):
Given you the visa.
Speaker 11 (24:09):
Now you're here, Now you do it. You lied to us,
You're out. It's that simple.
Speaker 8 (24:13):
But is there any but is there any evidence of
a link to terrorism or is it just his your
point of view?
Speaker 11 (24:20):
Yeah, they take over I mean do you not. I
mean you should watch the news. These guys take over
entire buildings. We vandalized college, they shut down.
Speaker 6 (24:28):
I'm asking you about.
Speaker 2 (24:28):
This justification for the revocation of his visa.
Speaker 3 (24:32):
Was there any.
Speaker 11 (24:32):
Evidential so was the negotiator on it, negotiating on behalf
of people that took over a campus, that vandalize buildings,
negotiating over what that's a crime in and of itself
that they're involved in being the negotiator of the spokesperson, this, that,
and the other.
Speaker 6 (24:45):
We don't want it.
Speaker 11 (24:46):
We don't need these people in our country that we
never should have allowed him in the.
Speaker 1 (24:49):
First and that is their radicalism. And this leads us
to Byron Donald's discussing standing strong for our constitution and
for liberty and pushing back against the radical left. He
was on enough a Fox News channel on Sunday.
Speaker 12 (25:01):
Yeah, I mean, look, people here, not just in Southwest Florida,
but in the entire state of Florida have come to
know me as a conservative who's focused on leading on
all the issues that really matter for the future of
our country. And so it doesn't matter what the issue
said's been, I'm there standing strong to defend the constitution,
(25:21):
defend the principles of liberty, and really push back on
the radical left and these narratives that have been really
hurting the conservative movement and a Republican party in politics
in the entire country. And so, you know, I'm really
honored that people have supported me throughout the years, and
that support has grown here in the Sunshine State, and
I'm really just honored to have their support, but most
(25:43):
importantly the endorsement of President Trump to be the next
governor of Florida. Joe Biden added two trillion dollars worth
of regulations in just four years. Donald Trump wants to
slash those regulations. And if you talk to business owners
like I do, like the President does so many of
my colleagues, if you're going to talk about what matters,
more tariffs or cutting the regulatory bureaucracy in Washington, they
(26:07):
will tell you cut the regulations because they're killing us.
They have no plan, they have no strategy of how
to make the lives of the American people. What I'm
focused on is securing our boarder. The Democrats failed. What
I really care about is sending people back to their
home countries.
Speaker 2 (26:21):
They failed.
Speaker 12 (26:22):
Actually getting out of wars on the glow on the
world stage. They failed. Donald Trump is doing that. He
is focused on the American people. If they want to
get up and walk out, that's their business. It'll demonstrate
how childish they are and how serious they have not
been about the business of America. God would tell any
Democrat that wants to come out there a national turf
from my town hall, bring it, because we're going to
talk to truth. We're going to talk about what's really
(26:43):
going on. I'm not afraid of you. It's about time
we get down the business here in DC.
Speaker 1 (26:48):
All right, Congressman Byron Donald's will join us. Next, we'll
get to your calls coming up as well. Eight hundred
and ninety four one Sean as we continue
I thanks Scott chan An Hour two Sean Hannity Show,
eight hundred and nine to four one, Shawn our number
if you want to be a part of the program.
We have a problem, and that is the Democrats. What
they cannot get done electorally at the ballot box, that
they can't get done legislatively, they run to liberal courts
and they hope to enact their agenda, install Trump's agenda.
(00:26):
The agenda, which by the way, is like an eighty
twenty issue at this point, which is the deportation of
known criminals that we have inside the country. It's not
a complicated issue. And anyway, it has now become a
battle within the courts, and it is it's successful. I mean,
the president has been successful. But anyway, the administration deported
(00:48):
nearly three hundred members of the Trend de Aragua gang
under what's called the Alien Enemies Act. And you have
a federal judge trying to blow because it hasn't been used,
you know, in a couple of hundred years, but it's
still on the books.
Speaker 2 (01:05):
It is still the law of the land.
Speaker 1 (01:07):
And we have one congressman that and has now moved
forward with an effort to move forward and impeach the
judge involved in this. Pam bondis slamming this DC trial
judge who blocked Trump from using the Alien Enemies Act
to deport Trenda or Ragwag gang members. And you know
the reason. You know that the judges is giving here
(01:28):
this delay makes absolutely no sense at all, and it
is basically the history of the federal judiciary system. And
this is this is where liberals go when they can't
win at the battle box. This is where they can't win.
What they do when they can't win any other way.
Do I think in the end that Donald Trump is
(01:49):
going to win? I do, And we'll have to see,
you know, how this plays out over time. But in
the meantime, we're kind of stuck with where we are.
And by the way, the President did thank the President
of l Salvador for taking gang members that were deported.
And we know that Elon Musk and Congress and elected
(02:12):
officials have asked for the impeachment of this judge that
that scuttle Trump's order. El Salvador's Trump friendly president, you know,
mocks this. This US judges deportation pause. And you've got
Jasmine Crockett along with as they discussed in the last hour,
AOC now leading the Democratic Party as they try to
(02:33):
I guess oppose Chucky Schumer anyway, Crockett attacking the Trump
administration for deporting members of trenda Ragua, tell me how
that makes any sense. And anyway, it's driving down immigration.
And we'll see how this plays out in the courts.
It's it's going to be interesting. I think that in
(02:53):
the end that Trump people win. Anyway. President Trump defended
the use of the l Enemies Act. And this is
what he said.
Speaker 3 (03:02):
This isn't that alien Enemies actors as making in both
three other times they were all during time of the war.
You feel that you're using it appropriately.
Speaker 4 (03:10):
Right now, this is a time of war.
Speaker 5 (03:11):
Chris Biden allowed millions of people, many of them criminals,
many of them at the highest level. They empty jails
out of the Nation's emptied their jails into the United States.
It's an invasion. And these are criminals, many many criminals, murderers,
drug dealers at the highest level, drug lords, now people
(03:33):
from mental institutions. That's an invasion. They invaded our country.
Speaker 6 (03:39):
So this isn't in.
Speaker 2 (03:40):
That sense, and this is war now.
Speaker 1 (03:42):
Tom Homan responded to our reporter about the President using
the Alien Enemies Act.
Speaker 2 (03:48):
Here is what he said.
Speaker 3 (03:49):
You say to those who claimed you're using a two
hundred year old law to circumvent you presents no law.
Speaker 7 (03:54):
He's not as old as Constitution.
Speaker 4 (03:55):
We still pay attention to that, don't we?
Speaker 1 (03:57):
Oh ouch anyway that he will further one on this
say he doesn't care if Judge's rule his actions are illegal.
Speaker 2 (04:03):
He's not going to stop anyway.
Speaker 1 (04:05):
David shown, former Council for President Trump's Civil Liberties attorney
Greg Jarrett, Fox News Legal analysts, bestselling author.
Speaker 2 (04:11):
Welcome both the view to the program. David, We'll start
with you.
Speaker 1 (04:15):
I think they are on solid ground in their argument,
and I think the President was very clear why Democrats
want to die on this hill. To put the rights
of the illegals over the safety of Americans is inexplicable
to me. But I'm having a hard time understanding that
party right now.
Speaker 8 (04:31):
One way or.
Speaker 7 (04:32):
Another, they are going to be deportable, whether it's under
the Alien Enemies Act or some other statutory basis. There
are some easier ways to go. By the way, it's
clear under a Statute eight USC. Twelve twenty seven that
these people are deportable, period, end of story. Why because
that statute tracks eight USC. Eleven eighty two, which makes
(04:52):
them inadmissible in the first place. And so, by the
way credit and Trump, it should be noted, has meant
as already categorize this gang as a foreign terrorist organization.
Speaker 6 (05:04):
Clearly under these provisions.
Speaker 7 (05:06):
Of these statutes, they're deportable. He decided to go with
the Alien Enemies Act, one would think because the president
has great authority under that act. There's even a question
from the nineteen forty eight case whether the Accords should intervene.
There hasn't been any formal declaration of war here, but
President Trump has said, as the commander in chief, that
this is the irregular warfare that they've engaged in through
(05:27):
their invasion.
Speaker 6 (05:28):
These are criminals, so.
Speaker 7 (05:28):
There should be any constituency for keeping them in the country.
Speaker 6 (05:32):
He will win one way or another.
Speaker 2 (05:34):
I agree with that. What's your assessment, Greg Jarrett?
Speaker 8 (05:37):
One hundred percent agree with both you and David. And
this is another lesson in why you should pay no
attention to the mainstream media. They would have you believe
that Trump has commandeered an obscure law to wrongfully deport
these violent gang members who are terrorists. The truth is
(05:58):
the law is not obscure. It's not being wrongfully used.
The Alien Enemies Act was passed by Congress, signed in
the law in seventeen ninety eight. It is well established.
It's never been repealed. It has been reviewed by courts
numerous times. Four different presidents have invoked it, three of
(06:20):
them Democrats in the twentieth century. And the Act is
not limited to wartime authority, is some of the media claim. Now.
Woodrow Wilson and Harriet Truman both used the Acts well
after both World wars ended. It permits the president to
remove without a hearing, what he designates to be alien
(06:44):
enemies whenever there is a declared war or a predatory incursion. Now,
what does that mean? A predatory incursion is broadly defined
in the law as entry into the US for purposes
contrary to the nation's interests or law, and that language
(07:05):
gives President Trump broad latitude to protect the safety and
security of its citizens. David mentioned in the nineteen forty
eight case US Supreme Court upheld Harry Truman's use of
the act, rule that it is completely constitutional in the
name of the case is liticky versus Watkins. And this
(07:27):
is the important part. The High Court stated that a
president's decision under the Act, and I'm quoting here precludes
judicial review of them of the order. So, in other words,
a judge cannot second guess the president.
Speaker 1 (07:45):
So would that then allow the president to move forward
regardless of what this judge's ruling says it does?
Speaker 8 (07:52):
Now they have filed for a stay in the DC
Circuit Court of Appeals pending a hearing, and you know,
I think if they're going to follow Supreme Court precedent,
the DC Circuit Court will reverse what Judge James Bosberg did.
(08:12):
You know, Federal district court judges, even pellet judges, cannot
make new laws. And as the Supreme Court said in
nineteen forty eight, this is the law of the land
and it must be followed. You cannot, as a lowly
court judge, decide you're smarter and better than the Supreme Court.
(08:36):
And so, you know, Bosberg didn't care what the Supreme
Court had previously ruled. I think he's been influenced by
his political views and perhaps personal animus toward Trump, and
he is not following the dictates of the law.
Speaker 1 (08:53):
So if we look at you know, the adverse rulings
against the Trump agenda so far. It is in keeping
with the history of what Democrats do when they lose
at the ballot box, what they can't get done legislatively,
they go to the liberal courts. And there have been
fifteen injunctions so far on the Trump agenda. Caroline Levitt
(09:14):
spoke out about this late last week. Instead fighting back
by appealing, fighting back by using the full weight to
the White House Council's Office and our lawyers at the
federal government who believed that this injunction is entirely unconstitutional.
It seems like this is now the strategy of choice,
David Chohan that the left has taken on.
Speaker 6 (09:34):
Yeah, there's no question.
Speaker 7 (09:35):
Look, we all believe, you believe certainly in the idea
of judicial with you. We have a three party system,
three part system, and that's appropriate. But it should not
go unnoticed that the court of choice generally with these
things is the District Court in DC. We have decisions
coming the same judges who you know, clearly, if the
(09:55):
name Trump was in a case presented to Judge Beryl
Howe for Examp in the DC District Court, you know
the result before you hear any of the evidence all
that that's in a perversion of our system. It can
be that all of these decisions by the judges are
then made on political grounds. Then we don't have a
three part system working properly. That's not really judicial review.
(10:16):
So for sure that's the choice here. You know, you're
going to see they don't have the numbers in Congress,
or you would have seen an impeachment movement already afoot
from AOC and that crowd. Yeah, we're going to keep
seeing this all throughout the administration.
Speaker 6 (10:31):
You can be sure.
Speaker 1 (10:33):
This activist judge, it is a US district judge actually
added in his ruling that any plane containing suspected members
of Trende Arragua that was planning to take offer that
was already in the air needed to be returned to
the US. The White House blasted the judge and said, well,
they're out of the US airspace at this point, we
have no control over it. Would that be a fair interpretation,
(10:56):
Greg Jarrett.
Speaker 8 (10:57):
Yeah, it absolutely is. And what secure is Bosberg? Let
it be known that he wanted those planes carrying the
TDA terrorists to turn around mid air return to the US,
but he didn't put that in his final written order.
Now why well, because he surely realized no judge has
(11:19):
the power to issue an order redirecting flights that are
beyond US soil and airspace airspace. But you know, his
willingness to verbalize such a lawless desire as a really
really a window into the thinking of this activist judge.
And there are several troubling aspects of his tro I mean,
(11:44):
the judge acted without bothering to hear from the government.
Second of all, you know there are five named plaintiffs
in the aclused petition. Well where are they? They're in
Texas or a DC. Judge has no jurisdiction. And third,
the exclusive remedy is a habeas corpus petition, it's not
(12:04):
a temporary restraining order. And you know, finally, this judge
sort of magically transforms the entire case into a class action,
extending his restraining order to all non citizens that might
be affected by Trump's invocation of the AEA. I mean,
(12:25):
that is judicial activism.
Speaker 2 (12:27):
Run a mock click break.
Speaker 1 (12:29):
Right back more with Greg Jared David Schoan on the
other side. Eight one hundred and ninety four one Shawn
is number. We'll get to your calls coming up in
mere moments as we continue. Let's go to our busy phones.
Let's say hi to Jeremy and Missouri. Jeremy, how are
you glad you called?
Speaker 8 (12:46):
Hey?
Speaker 6 (12:46):
Som how are you doing? I got a great age?
Speaker 2 (12:48):
What's going on?
Speaker 9 (12:49):
Yeah?
Speaker 6 (12:49):
Boy? Oh great?
Speaker 2 (12:51):
What's that?
Speaker 7 (12:51):
So?
Speaker 6 (12:52):
I was thinking maybe you Trump and Elon could all
sign the dash in a paint ten kind of personal
line to give away.
Speaker 1 (13:01):
It's a great idea. I mean I'd have to get
them to agree to it. I'm obviously I would be
the easy one to get to sign it. But it's
a great idea. It would add value to it in
my opinion, don't you think absolutely?
Speaker 6 (13:13):
I mean, you guys should do it in red, white
and blue too. You know all American car and you
know the new American president is doing the great things
that he's doing. I'm all for it. I think it'd
be amazing.
Speaker 1 (13:25):
I think it'd be amazing too. Let me let me
ponder that idea and see if I might be able
to somehow pull that off. It means i'd have to
like ship it to DC, ship it to the White House,
get it in there at a time when Elon and
the President are there, ask them to go out and
sign it and then have it shipped to Florida. Then
I'd have to sign it and then ship it to
wherever the winter happens to be, so there might be
(13:45):
a lot of shipping. I'm I'm willing to do it
if I can pull it off though. That's a great idea. Anyway,
Jeremy appreciate you call. Let's say, how to Morgan in
my free state of Florida. Morgan, how are you glad
you called? I'm good? What's going on?
Speaker 9 (13:58):
Great? I have a short and sweet and non political questions.
Speaker 2 (14:02):
I love it.
Speaker 9 (14:03):
I know that you do too. So my question is
what is your go to favorite recipe to make for dinner?
Speaker 1 (14:09):
Okay, I am very very basic for do you're specifically
asking about dinner? Most nights I have meat with a
lot of grilled onions and sometimes a light vegetable and
that's basically it. So it's either it's either steak or
chicken or a burger or pork ribs or pork chop.
Speaker 2 (14:32):
That's pretty much my staple.
Speaker 9 (14:34):
All right, So no favorite recipes?
Speaker 1 (14:36):
Well, I mean yeah, I mean if I could cook
like and eat like I used to eat, and I
really don't have a desire to do it. Usually when
I get seafood, I will get seafood out rather than
cook it in.
Speaker 2 (14:50):
But I I mean I I could whip up a
steak in no time. I get.
Speaker 1 (14:53):
I mean, I do it like it's and with chef
I q sents forget it, it's even easier.
Speaker 2 (14:58):
What's your favorite.
Speaker 9 (14:59):
Meal in Florida? I say seafood all the way.
Speaker 2 (15:03):
Okay, so what's your favorite seafood?
Speaker 9 (15:06):
Probably scallops I've been trying to master, all right, that's
not hard to master.
Speaker 1 (15:11):
It's easy to master. I like seered scallops. I like
shrimp either. I like grilled shrimp, and I like I'll
take a shrimp cocktail occasionally. I like lobster tel I
like crab legs, and I like crab claws. Those That's
about what I eat seafood wise, and I will eat
an occasional salmon or halib it.
Speaker 9 (15:32):
There you go. Well, my go to also is crabcakes.
That's one of my favorites.
Speaker 1 (15:37):
Right, well, okay, add that to my list. I like
crabcakes too, but I don't eat them very often. And
I can make a really mean crabcake too.
Speaker 9 (15:44):
Oh yeah, me too. I have a cookoff next time
you're down in Palm Coast.
Speaker 1 (15:48):
Okay, thank you, Morgan, God bless you. Glad you're out there.
Angela West, Virginia, Sean Hannity Show, Hi.
Speaker 3 (15:55):
Hi Sean. How are you today?
Speaker 2 (15:58):
I'm good? How are you this Monday? What's going on?
Speaker 3 (16:00):
I'm great. I'm just chiming in today to discuss further,
like you did last week, whether or not you should
go on the View. And I think I speak for
many many Americans to say absolutely not. I think by
going on that show, you legitimize the show. Nobody cares.
(16:21):
They're irrelevant. No one cares what celebrities think anymore and
what they say, and they speak vile things about our
president when he's trying to do the best possible job,
and all they do is tear down. I'd like to
take it a step further and ask that the executives
of Fox News stop telling us what they said today,
(16:46):
because we don't care what the View says.
Speaker 1 (16:49):
They well, sometimes it is entertaining to watch them bubble
them fizz like Alca Saltz. So we do play an
occasional clip for kicks and giggles and entertainment purposes only,
So we definitely do that.
Speaker 3 (17:01):
I'm hoping that they'll just go away silently and no
one will.
Speaker 1 (17:05):
Ever know that they Oh, they're definitely on, definitely on
cancelation Watch, like so many other shows, just like Chucky
Schumer's now on you know, cancelation watches, the Senate Minority Leader,
just like all these late night comedy shows. They're on
official cancelation Watch too. And just like a lot of
news programs on fake News CNN MSDNC. You saw the
(17:26):
bloodbath at msdn C. I mean, they're all on official
cancelation watch, right. No, it's in many ways, it's kind
of been miraculous. I'm in my twenty ninth year at
Fox and have out, you know, in spite of a
lot of people that would have predicted otherwise, maybe in
the beginning rightly, so my demise and wanting my demise,
I've outlasted all of them, and I've got a lot
(17:48):
in me and I'm continuing now for a good while.
I'm not going anywhere anytime soon that I know of.
Speaker 3 (17:54):
That's great, that's wonderful. That's what we want to hear.
And you know, I'm from this great state of West
virgin and West Virginia carried every single county for president.
Speaker 2 (18:05):
Amazing this pastime.
Speaker 3 (18:07):
This was wonderful. Yes, because years ago we used to
be democratic and that's that's we've come a long way.
Speaker 2 (18:13):
Not anymore.
Speaker 1 (18:14):
You made the you made the full transition, like Florida
and like Ohio and like a lot of other states.
And if we can convert a few more, I'd like
to see Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan, UH become reliable, reliably
red states. And if that happens, then, you know what,
the country will be given a lot better shape. On
the issue of the view that that poll is now
(18:34):
officially shut down. I won fifty to forty nine. It
was a very very close vote that almost forced me
onto that show. Thank goodness for all of you that
voted no.
Speaker 2 (18:45):
Thank you. I think Linda was trying to stack the
stack the deck.
Speaker 3 (18:50):
There, Thank goodness, because we don't want their ratings to
go up because you're on it, you know what I mean,
their ratings would because people would you.
Speaker 1 (18:58):
It was sort of a I'm in a no win
situation in that in that environment, here's the problem, and
whether whether I would have invited them on my show,
or I go on their show. Here's the problem is
they're going to lash out with their their their trumped arrangement.
They're going to say false things, and then I'm in
(19:18):
a position that I'd be never ending, non interruptive, which
my audience does not like. And they've communicated that loudly
to me over the years. Or I let them talk
and then people are mad at me. Why didn't you
fix that? Why didn't you correct them? Why didn't you
Because it's every other word I'll have to correct. So
it's it's to me. It doesn't lend itself to really
(19:39):
good television, if that makes sense. I mean I tried
to have a discussion the last time with James Carvel
and he's just fewing out things that are false, and
he said, fact check me, fact check me.
Speaker 2 (19:48):
So the next night I've fact checked them right.
Speaker 3 (19:51):
And you know, you don't want to have to just
be defense mode the whole time because they don't listen
to reason. There, they don't real irrational totally.
Speaker 1 (19:58):
There are not many Democrats right now. They're in their
right mind. We must have pity on them. Anyway, I
do appreciate the call.
Speaker 2 (20:05):
Thank you. So much for being with us Angela checking anytime? Mark?
And Ohio, what's up? Mark? How are you glad you called?
Speaker 7 (20:13):
Hey?
Speaker 4 (20:13):
Sean?
Speaker 2 (20:15):
What's going on?
Speaker 10 (20:16):
Hey? So I'm in Connecticut.
Speaker 2 (20:18):
Sorry, Hey.
Speaker 10 (20:19):
I always wanting to talk about these protests because I've
seen a ton of it, and for the regular person watching,
you really, you know, you just can't understand why they're
there and what they're doing there. But I just saw
yesterday between indeed and I forget the other one. You know,
(20:41):
the big job board that they have online, there's seven
hundred and sixty two advertisements for paid protesting just in
New York City alone. So for everybody that's watching it,
that says, how do these people think that this is okay?
Or that's okay whatever the cause is for the day,
It's all nothing.
Speaker 6 (21:02):
To do with what they're thinking.
Speaker 2 (21:04):
It's all they're getting paid, okay.
Speaker 1 (21:06):
Now, we have exposed this in the past, and that
is that there are groups that are organizing and they're
paying people, and they're moving people in, and there are
groups that are even handing out talking points and the questions,
and they're trying to sabotage Republican town halls to create
a false impression that Republicans are not being liked right
(21:29):
now when all the polls are to the contrary, And
if this is the democratic tactic, let them continue, because
you know, we have now three polls consecutively that show
their approval rating in the twenties, the lowest that's been
in decades and decades. So if that's what they want
to do, I'm okay with it. But if you're an
elected official, you do need to be on the lookout
(21:50):
a little bit and understand that these are paid protesters
and they're showing up to make you look bad.
Speaker 4 (21:57):
You know.
Speaker 1 (21:57):
Look, the reasons are just so many why the left
is losing touch with the American people and they're pulling
at all time lows. You know, there are a couple
of people that are recognizing it. One is Bill Maher.
Here's him pointing out how the Democrats have funneled all
this money to environmentalism after Biden lost Any skeptical of
(22:19):
saving the Department of Education. Oh maybe there is a
little intellectual curiosity on the left.
Speaker 4 (22:25):
Listen, The question, though, really is is the Department of
Education doing that? Is that now? They probably are doing
some good work. I'm sure they are, right what is
their budget, like two hundred billion dollars or something. But
it also looks like some of these places are just
funneling money to people who are not solving the problem.
(22:46):
I mean, I saw that story about the twenty billion
that went out the door after Biden lost the EPA.
It wasn't the EPA or was it the EPA, but
there was twenty billion dollars that they shoveled to because
Trump was coming in then they were going to reverse
all this stuff and supposedly environmental groups and they were
(23:08):
not really environmental groups and they had no experience in
doing it. Like I said before, I care about the plastics?
Speaker 2 (23:14):
Did they think?
Speaker 4 (23:14):
Do I think this money was going to get rid
of the plastics? In my brain, I do not. So
I am skeptical of the Department of Education, and I
think every Democrat who runs really needs to take on
this issue because that's your portfolio education. You've owned it
and the results aren't good.
Speaker 2 (23:31):
And he's right.
Speaker 1 (23:32):
I mean, use my example about the Department of Education.
Ten families even thirty thousand per student, good luck, they're
going to have one teacher for every five kids. Secretary
of State Mark or Rubio sparring with Margaret Brennan over
revoking you know, Mahmood Khalil's visa. Okay, be the party
of Mangioni and Khalil. That's what the Democrats are now becoming.
Speaker 11 (23:54):
And if you tell us when you apply for a visa,
I'm coming to the US to participate in Prohamas events,
that runs counter to the foreign policy interest to the
United States of America. It's that simple.
Speaker 2 (24:05):
So you lied, you came.
Speaker 11 (24:06):
If you had told us that you were going to
do that, we never would have.
Speaker 4 (24:08):
Given you the visa.
Speaker 11 (24:09):
Now you're here, Now you do it. You lied to us,
You're out. It's that simple.
Speaker 8 (24:13):
But is there any but is there any evidence of
a link to terrorism or is it just his your
point of view?
Speaker 11 (24:20):
Yeah, they take over I mean do you not. I
mean you should watch the news. These guys take over
entire buildings. We vandalized college, they shut down.
Speaker 6 (24:28):
I'm asking you about.
Speaker 2 (24:28):
This justification for the revocation of his visa.
Speaker 3 (24:32):
Was there any.
Speaker 11 (24:32):
Evidential so was the negotiator on it, negotiating on behalf
of people that took over a campus, that vandalize buildings,
negotiating over what that's a crime in and of itself
that they're involved in being the negotiator of the spokesperson, this, that,
and the other.
Speaker 6 (24:45):
We don't want it.
Speaker 11 (24:46):
We don't need these people in our country that we
never should have allowed him in the.
Speaker 1 (24:49):
First and that is their radicalism. And this leads us
to Byron Donald's discussing standing strong for our constitution and
for liberty and pushing back against the radical left. He
was on enough a Fox News channel on Sunday.
Speaker 12 (25:01):
Yeah, I mean, look, people here, not just in Southwest Florida,
but in the entire state of Florida have come to
know me as a conservative who's focused on leading on
all the issues that really matter for the future of
our country. And so it doesn't matter what the issue
said's been, I'm there standing strong to defend the constitution,
(25:21):
defend the principles of liberty, and really push back on
the radical left and these narratives that have been really
hurting the conservative movement and a Republican party in politics
in the entire country. And so, you know, I'm really
honored that people have supported me throughout the years, and
that support has grown here in the Sunshine State, and
I'm really just honored to have their support, but most
(25:43):
importantly the endorsement of President Trump to be the next
governor of Florida. Joe Biden added two trillion dollars worth
of regulations in just four years. Donald Trump wants to
slash those regulations. And if you talk to business owners
like I do, like the President does so many of
my colleagues, if you're going to talk about what matters,
more tariffs or cutting the regulatory bureaucracy in Washington, they
(26:07):
will tell you cut the regulations because they're killing us.
They have no plan, they have no strategy of how
to make the lives of the American people. What I'm
focused on is securing our boarder. The Democrats failed. What
I really care about is sending people back to their
home countries.
Speaker 2 (26:21):
They failed.
Speaker 12 (26:22):
Actually getting out of wars on the glow on the
world stage. They failed. Donald Trump is doing that. He
is focused on the American people. If they want to
get up and walk out, that's their business. It'll demonstrate
how childish they are and how serious they have not
been about the business of America. God would tell any
Democrat that wants to come out there a national turf
from my town hall, bring it, because we're going to
talk to truth. We're going to talk about what's really
(26:43):
going on. I'm not afraid of you. It's about time
we get down the business here in DC.
Speaker 1 (26:48):
All right, Congressman Byron Donald's will join us. Next, we'll
get to your calls coming up as well. Eight hundred
and ninety four one Sean as we continue
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!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show. Clay Travis and Buck Sexton tackle the biggest stories in news, politics and current events with intelligence and humor. From the border crisis, to the madness of cancel culture and far-left missteps, Clay and Buck guide listeners through the latest headlines and hot topics with fun and entertaining conversations and opinions.