October 21, 2025 • 30 mins
On this episode, Sean Hannity dives deep into the looming "Schumer shutdown" and the federal government's fight against narco-terrorists, while challenging the runaway spending in Washington. Senator Rand Paul joins to discuss his principled stand for balanced budgets and his "penny plan," contrasting his approach with both Democrat and Republican proposals that add trillions to the national debt. Sean frames the debate as a critical choice between fiscal sanity and government bloat, emphasizing Paul's unique voice for restraint and constitutional governance. Their candid exchange on foreign policy, especially executive war powers, highlights real divides within the GOP and why strong dissenting voices in D.C. still matter for America's future.
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):
All right, News, roundup, information, overload hour. Here's our toll
(00:02):
free number. It's eight hundred and ninety four one sean
if you want to be a part of the program.
A lot to talk about, the Schumer shutdown, the President
taking on these narco terrorists. What should the role of
the federal government be in all of this. We have
an update on the issue in the battle and the
conflict out of Russia with Ukraine. The President canceling this
(00:24):
upcoming meeting with Putin because he won't agree to cease fire,
which I think is the right message to send. We
still have a lot you know, Hamas is not abiding
by the agreement, which, as the President said, he's going
to give the green light for Israel to go in
there and pretty much annihilate Gaza and Hamas. If they
(00:45):
won't do it themselves, this is sort of their last chance.
We welcome back to the program, Senator Rampaul of Kentucky.
The president's pretty pissed off of you.
Speaker 2 (00:54):
Know, I wouldn't go that far. We've had some spats
in the past, and you know.
Speaker 3 (01:01):
I'd go that far. He's pretty pissed off.
Speaker 2 (01:04):
I've known the President for over a decade. You know,
I've played golf with him dozens of times. We still
have our moments, But I think at the same time,
people in America, particularly Republicans, still want there to be
a voice for balanced budgets, less spending, fiscal responsibility, and
right now I'm in and so I think we'll continue
(01:25):
to have that debate. But I still support the President
on quite a bit of the agenda, lower taxes, I
love what he's done with the border. So there's a
lot of agreement as well.
Speaker 1 (01:34):
So I find myself in an amiable position. I'm going
to have to defend something that I don't fully support,
and principle I agree with you on And you know,
I don't like government shutdowns in the sense that, all right,
we know what happens with him, I'm not as afraid
of them. I'm consistent when Democrats shut the government down,
(01:56):
Republicans shut the government down.
Speaker 3 (01:57):
I'm like, it's not the end of the world.
Speaker 1 (01:59):
Everyone going to get a free vacation, come back and
get back pay. That's how it always ends, one way
or the other, and that's how this one is going
to end. It's just now a matter of time. They
had I think they had to get through their no
King's weekend. Democrats were not going to piss off their
base in the lead up to these protests this weekend,
so you will not vote to reopen the government with
(02:20):
a continuing resolution. Now, the problem that it gets more
nuanced than complicated. As you know, Republicans don't have sixty votes.
They the Democrats, with the exception of maybe John Fetterman
and one or two others, you know, there are not
enough votes. The Democrats are holding the country hostage by
(02:45):
demanding one point five trillion in new spending. That includes
you know, billions for hundreds of billions for moneies for
illegal immigrants.
Speaker 3 (02:53):
Healthcare.
Speaker 1 (02:53):
That includes continuing the Obamacare subsidies that Joe Biden put
in place during COVID, which was supposed to be to
That includes funding MPR and PBS and DEI initiatives around
the globe.
Speaker 3 (03:07):
That's insane.
Speaker 1 (03:08):
That's never going to happen, and I think it's only
a matter of time till they cave. Then they go
to a continuing resolution, which is where negotiation begins. But
Republicans don't have the votes to do what you want.
Your caucus doesn't have them. And I'm just looking at
it from a realistic standpoint, and I know you're taking
a principal stand. I admire principal stands. I just we're
(03:31):
never going to get to where you want unless we
take first steps.
Speaker 2 (03:33):
In my view, Well, the debate is over what the
spending level should be. So the Republican Continuing Resolution would
add about two trillion in debt over the next year.
The Democrat plan would add over three trillion. So I'm
opposed to the Democrat plan, but I'm also opposed to
the Republican plan because they both add two trillion to
three trillion in debt. And there is another alternative. I've
put it forward. It's a Penny Plan, and it would
(03:55):
balance the budget over five years. Each year the deficit
would be less Now, if I'm gone, and if everybody
marches lockstep and everybody just does what they're told, that
there'll be no Penny Plan, there'll be no voice for
the Penny Plan, There'll be no voice for balanced budgets.
I don't have the votes now, but if you ask
the people across the country that people listening to this program,
(04:17):
are they with me that we should be balancing the
budget and lessening the debt? Or should I vote for
the Biden spending levels from last year. See the Republican
c Are is a continuation of the Biden spending levels
from December of last year. The irony is every Democrat
up here actually voted to these spending levels last December.
A lot of conservatives voted against them. Now the roles
(04:38):
have switched for the exact same spending numbers. You've got
Republicans voting for the Biden spending levels and Democrats voting
against them. And I'm the only voice up here talking
about that the debt instead of being two trillions, should
be less. And people say, well, I.
Speaker 3 (04:53):
Want to be clear.
Speaker 1 (04:53):
And you've been on this program and we've discussed the
Penny Plan many many times over the years. I've been
a long time I'm advocate of the Penny Plan since
Connie Mack introduced it many years ago in the House.
Maybe we're up to the two cent plan or five
of the Nickel Plan.
Speaker 3 (05:09):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (05:10):
But to me, there are two things that are that
are going on simultaneously that give me hope. One is
the President has commitments of seventeen trillion dollars in new
manufacturing monies for semiconductors, automobiles and pharmaceuticals. Also a new
deally made on rare earths with Australia eight point five trillion.
(05:31):
I think it's going to be critical for national defense.
The President also has opened up energy dominance, and I
think that's going to lead to an enormous impact on
the economy over time. When Reagan dropped the tax rates
from seven eight to twenty eight percent, we doubled revenues
to the government and it led to twenty one million
new jobs, longest period of peacetime economic growth. The problem
(05:54):
back then is the problem we faced today. Congress spent
a buck twenty five for every new dollar he brought
in he doubled revenue. So I'm with you on the
Penny Plan. I just you know, at this time, with
the Senate configured as it is, I don't see any
Democrats supporting it.
Speaker 2 (06:11):
Yeah, they don't. And what's going to happen, though, is
in the end the big government, Democrats and Republicans will
join hands. This is what always happens. The government will
open up. They won't stay close forever. It's going to
open in the next week or two, and the Democrats
will join the Republicans. But there still has to be
a voice. Historically, there's been a voice more than one person.
Right now, it's me my. Historically, there have been other
(06:34):
Conservatives that did not vote to raise the debt ceiling,
that did not vote for Republican plans to raise the debt.
Now they're all moving in lockstep, and I'm ostracized. You know,
I'm the one that's catching the flack. But if I'm
not here, there is no voice left if I'm not.
Speaker 3 (06:51):
You have you had this conversation directly with the president.
Speaker 2 (06:55):
I have, and sometimes it goes well and sometimes not
so well. It depends on his mood. But I think
he fundamentally has agreements, and he's just been told by
you know, the people influencing him the most now are
actually the establishment Republicans, not the conservative Republicans. He's influenced
by the leadership, and he's influenced by let's just get
(07:15):
rid of these things.
Speaker 3 (07:15):
We can't do this.
Speaker 2 (07:16):
We don't have the votes, so we're going to do that,
And some of that is the expediency of the day.
But I don't think we have fundamental disagreements. That's why
I downplay how much he may or may not be
angry with me because, like I say, I've not him
for a decade, and there are many things I like
about him. I'm still the voice that liked the president
who didn't like the Iraq war, the president who didn't
(07:38):
like Obama's Libyan war, and so I continue to be
that voice. But if I'm quiet, or if I am
just become a rubber stamp, there's nobody from the you know,
less interventionist wing on foreign policy. He's only hearing the interveners,
he's only hearing the bombers, and so there has to
be people who stand up for things. It doesn't mean
we always have to agree. I mean, look, you and
(07:59):
I I have had a lot of great conversations. We
don't always agree, but you're always respectful to me, and
I like coming on. And the thing is is we
don't have to agree on everything.
Speaker 1 (08:10):
Well, let me there's only two ways to fix the deficit.
Reduce spending, okay, which is like, you know, an exorcism
for DC, and increase revenues. I'm pretty confident that the
President's you know, tax cuts, his energy policies, the seventeen trillion,
and new investments in the country, which is unprecedented.
Speaker 3 (08:33):
We've never had.
Speaker 1 (08:33):
That is going to increase revenues to the government so
that that side of the equation is done. Reducing spending
is always going to be the hard part, and you know,
these guys, you know, think they get their power by
increasing spending. Let me ask you on the foreign policy front,
were you against taking out Iran's nuclear sites.
Speaker 2 (08:54):
I think that we when we have an action of
war against another country, should be voted on by Congress first.
Any kind of offensive action. I think the founders intended
that Congress would vote on these. It's what the Constitution mandates.
So I'm not for having unchecked executive power. Now, whether
that was a good thing or bad things another discussion,
(09:15):
you know, whether or I would have voted for it.
I think that there, you know, were reasons to think
that it would succeed, and it did. But as far
as with it.
Speaker 1 (09:23):
The president does have sixty days to act without going
to Congress if he's going to engage a military action
at you know, enumerated powers and the Constitution. As commander
in chief, you don't disagree with.
Speaker 2 (09:35):
That, Well, the Constitution says that to declare war, an
offensive action that is planned has to be voted on
by Congress.
Speaker 1 (09:42):
First, well, you know, if you go back historically, no
president has ever been abiding by any of these resolutions.
And I think, as commander in chief, do you not
agree that Iranian the Iranians with nuclear weapons is an
existential threat to the entire way world because it was
obvious to me in a window of opportunity opened up,
(10:04):
and I believe it's fully constitutional the president out of
the authority to do so. Well talking about the War
Powers Act, to be specific, the.
Speaker 2 (10:12):
Debate with the Founders was pretty explicit, from Hamilton all
the way over to Jefferson. They disagreed on a lot
of things. They disagreed on the extent of the central government,
but they all agreed that the president shouldn't declare war
have offensive actions without the approval of Congress. You know,
there have been times we have voted to go to
war and we've been much more united as a country.
World War II was one. It was a defensive war
(10:33):
fought against people who attacked us. After nine to eleven
we were attacked as well. We voted in Congress to
vote in Congress. I think it was four hundred and
thirty four to one on the House side, and I
think ninety nine to zero. In the Senate side, I
think we can people think, oh, it's impractical to vote
in Congress. It actually brings us together. It also means
that all the representatives bear responsibility. If we don't all
(10:56):
vote for it, we go to war on a decoration
by the president, then what happens is I think people
could nitpick and backstab and do to that, and we've
become less united as a country. If we all vote
for it, then it's the responsibility of everybody voted for it.
Speaker 1 (11:11):
Oh to me, if you know, this was the problem
with the lead up to the Iraq conflict in my
view is we were telegraphing, telegraphing, telegraphing, and it allowed
I believe at the time, you know, everybody to prepare
and then put our troops in greater harms way.
Speaker 3 (11:29):
I think.
Speaker 1 (11:30):
Look, I like the Trump doctrine. I believe he's right
with no forever wars. I think the military actions that
he's taken, whether if he did, his defeat of the
Caliphate was critical for world security and for American security.
Taking out Solomani, the world's worst terrorist, was the right
thing to do the same with Bagdaddy. I thought at
(11:52):
the time it was appropriate to drop the mother of
all bombs on Afghanistan. And I think again, in the
case of taking out the Iranian nuclear sites, we had
a window of opportunity and a president as commander in chief.
I believe as the authority. Past presidents seem to have
agreed with me. No president has agreed with your interpretation
(12:15):
of what our framers founders said, and it's been in
dispute since, you know, for decades and decades now that
if you have a window of opportunity to make the
world a safer place in the long run, and he
did it without creating a forever war. I kind of
like the Trump doctrine, and I would think that part
of it you like too.
Speaker 2 (12:34):
I think most presidents up through Roosevelt, up through World
War Two did agree that we didn't go to war
without a vote, even George Bush.
Speaker 1 (12:41):
Really there wasn't called way you defining as a war.
Every military action is not necessarily a war.
Speaker 2 (12:47):
I would say that a planned offensive action is if
your ship through attack at sea. So let's say your
ships are off because of yeahmen and they're being bombed
by the Hooties. To respond to those as is not
an act of war because it's a defensive action attacking
and self defense, the same as the Barbary Pirates was
an act of self defense. When you're being attacked by
(13:08):
all means, you always have the mind the ability to
respond without a vote of Congress.
Speaker 1 (13:12):
Well, we know Iran and killed the Americans in Iraq
and Afghanistan and elsewhere, and they've been fomenting terror throughout
the region and targeting American.
Speaker 2 (13:20):
Well, then the vote should be pretty easy. You bring
it to Congress, and I think Congress probably would have
approved of it. But I think these debates need to
happen because there's still some unknowns. Well, right now, it
looks like it was a really good, well planned executed
and the result was good. There is still a question
although the uranium still still exists, the uranium didn't disappear,
there is a question will they continue on and we
(13:43):
don't know because they would do this in secret. Will
they continue on with development of the bomb because of
the attacks or will they be chastened? And I think
there is some evidence that they are chasing I think
there is a great deal of evidence at this point
the bombing had good effect that their ancillary.
Speaker 1 (13:59):
Goal do you worry that we're putting troops at risk
because we surrender the element of surprise.
Speaker 2 (14:05):
Well, I don't think anybody was surprised by this either.
They talked for it for two bloody weeks, you know,
before he bombed them. It was explicitly discussed in the
media for weeks and weeks that it was coming, and
that the resolution isn't to bomb you any certain day
and time or place. The resolution is that we are
a state of war. The reason it makes a difference too,
is because then you don't have to have any process.
(14:26):
You kill the enemy. It's the same problem we have
with Venezuela. Now, without any kind of decoration of war,
we are killing people accused of running drugs, but we
don't have any evidence of who they are or that
there actually are smuggling drugs. All we have is an accusation.
Speaker 4 (14:41):
And you can do that.
Speaker 2 (14:41):
In a war. But you can't let the president declare
a war. You have to go through Congress. So there
is a much more uniform or much more universal approval
of the war.
Speaker 1 (14:51):
Well, no modern day president has followed those rules, as
you know, and I think that it is I think
the enumerated power as president commander in chief. He's got
to be able to take military strikes when opportunity presents
itself to keep the nation safe. I think he did
the right thing in the case of Iran. I love
the fact that twelve days later there was even peace
with Israel and Iran. So and the world is safe
(15:14):
for place as a result of it. People that are
smuggling drugs in our country, I'm sorry they are attacking
Americans and trying to kill Americans. I don't care if
you guys have a vote on it or not. Frankly,
I'd love to put the Democrats on record being against it.
Speaker 3 (15:30):
Anyway.
Speaker 1 (15:30):
Always fun. We appreciate your time, Senator ram Paul, Thank you, sir.
Speaker 2 (15:34):
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (15:37):
All right to our busy phones as we say hi
to Jeffrey in Washington State. Jeffrey High, how are you,
and We're glad you called.
Speaker 5 (15:46):
I'm well, Sean. I'm just want to say personal thanks
to you and your team for the great work you
do keeping this the electric informed of what we need
to be informed about to keep our country great.
Speaker 3 (16:00):
It's our pleasure to be here every day.
Speaker 1 (16:01):
You make it possible for us to continue doing this job.
Speaker 3 (16:05):
We appreciate you.
Speaker 1 (16:06):
And it's our goal every day to give you news
information in a little bit of an entertaining way to
you know, you know, it's our job is kind of easy.
We're the opposite of the mainstream media. You know, they
don't talk about what we talk about. They just kew
everything and they're just you know, locked up in Trump's
arrangement syndrome twenty four to seven.
Speaker 3 (16:27):
But thank you. It is my main point.
Speaker 5 (16:30):
Yeah, for sure. As I've been following the issue regarding
the Blue state resistance to the federal government's help and
the National Guard recently the exposure of the bounties and
the threats from the cartels, gangs and Antifa, it's caused
me to ask the question, is there any impact from
(16:53):
these organizations on say the governor of Illinois or the
mayor such that that's them to look away or to
push back because they're getting pressure from themselves personally or
for a particular threat to their power in their state.
And I just haven't heard anything. Wondered if your group
had had had heard anything to that effect.
Speaker 1 (17:15):
Look, I know of no such connections. Nothing in this
day and age and all the years I've been doing
this would shock me or surprise me. I don't know why.
You know how you can be the governor of a state,
have four thousand people dead, have five times the homicide
murder rate than New York City, and you're more mad
at Donald Trump for trying to for offering you help
(17:39):
to secure safety and law and restore law and order
in your state. Is beyond any understanding comprehension I have.
It defies all logic, It defies all common sense to me.
But that is Chicago, that is New York City. New
York City now is on the precipice of electing a
guy that wants to hire social workers and replace police
(18:02):
with social workers. You're on the precipice of the you
know here you have the largest tax city in the nation,
and he's gonna raise taxes further. He's offering everything for free,
free buses, you know, more, rent, free apartments. He lives
in a rent stabilized apartment, which is unbelievable to me,
considering he's a man of means. He has plenty of
(18:23):
money to pay for a free market apartment. And I'm
telling you what the net predictable net result is gonna be.
They're gonna leave and people that can afford to leave
will leave, and people that can't afford to leave will
be stuck. And all these promises that it's it's I
wrote a whole chapter and live for your die always
ends the same way, unfulfilled promises, more poverty, not less,
(18:49):
and a loss of freedom in the name of false
government security. And if you don't believe me, ask yourself.
You know, how are things working out in your town
or city with government run schools, with defund dismantled no
bail laws. How are things working out where democrats are
in charge? Not very well. So you know, we'll watch,
(19:13):
we'll learn it's going to be a case study over
time that this is all a failure. But you know,
I New York City is New York City. There's a
reason I don't live in the state of New York anymore.
I mean, when I say I'm out of New York,
I am totally disconnected from New York.
Speaker 3 (19:30):
I am done. I am out. That's it.
Speaker 4 (19:33):
You know.
Speaker 1 (19:34):
I'll occasionally go see my sister, occasionally, you know, do
an event for Fox.
Speaker 3 (19:39):
Short of that, I don't go there.
Speaker 5 (19:40):
Well, Hey, we appreciate all you're doing. We can sure
use your input out here. In Washington State, that's for sure.
Speaker 1 (19:48):
Washington. You might want to consider, you know, Idaho next door.
You might want to consider Vegas or Nevada or Arizona,
or you know, there's a lot of great states you
could move to. Maybe Montana, Wyoming. I don't know, and
I guess Liz Cheney is still in Wyoming, but the
politics are much better there.
Speaker 3 (20:06):
Anyway, appreciate it.
Speaker 1 (20:07):
Jeffrey eighth and nine four one sean number if you
want to call in Margaret, New York, New York.
Speaker 3 (20:14):
What's up, Margaret? How you doing.
Speaker 6 (20:16):
I'm doing well, Shawn. Thank you for taking my call,
and thanks for your team as well, for all the
efforts that you put out for us, we the people.
So you highlight things a lot about You talk about
Chicago crime, and people who say that Trump doesn't have
any business being in Chicago have clearly not actually experienced
(20:39):
any of the crime in Chicago.
Speaker 4 (20:41):
Because it's bad.
Speaker 1 (20:42):
Oh it's horrible. I have I have five times the
murder rate of New York City. That tells you everything
you need to know, doesn't it?
Speaker 6 (20:50):
It does? And you know my son who lives just
west of Bucktown. I don't know if you know the
area of Bucktown or Chicago, but he just lives west
of Bucktown and he's he've been in two gang shootouts
just because he was on the street walking to his
car and one time had to dive under a car
to escape the bullets. And then more recently, my son
(21:12):
and his wife were walking in broad daylight and they
were held up at gunpoint and robbed in broad daylight.
Speaker 1 (21:22):
That that's life in the big city. I mean, I
told you they have the lowest They have the lowest
population now in Chicago than they've had in decades, and
it's declining. What's happening. People are are leaving with their feet.
And I'll tell you what else is going to happen.
Here's my prediction to when when the Trump seventeen trillion
of manufacturing gets online and energy dominant policies and jobs
(21:47):
created get online, when the tax cuts kick in, and
you know, you see the economy churn like it did
under Reagan. You know, seventy to twenty eight percent on
one million new jobs are created. What I'm urging people
to do is consider removing any self imposed obstacle to
(22:11):
success in your life. And what I mean by that
is is going to be coming online, and we're on
track now to create high paying career jobs that probably
won't be in your town or your city. Now you
can put a self imposed limitation on your life, or
you know, you could look at these opportunities for new
(22:34):
auto manufacturing plants are going to be built, find out
where they're built. Put in an application if you want one.
Same with pharmaceuticals new manufacturing schedule to be online, put
in put in an application, the same thing with semiconductor chips.
I mean, every one of these industries that are going
to be building out the next year are going to
(22:57):
be career, high paying jobs for working Americans. And the
same in the oil industry. And we did this. You know,
years ago, we were able to match companies with people
and they'd moved to North Dakota or they'd moved to
Texas or Oklahoma. And people that were making thirty thousand,
forty thousand dollars a year, well, you know, we started
(23:17):
making one hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year and
to transform their life. So emerging people pay attention, be
ahead of the curve, and there's opportunity coming, and it's
coming quickly. And and I urge the people in this
audience to be smarter than everybody else, because you already
are smarter than everybody else. But if I found myself
(23:38):
in a position I wasn't happy with what I was
doing with my life, and I wanted, let's say I
wanted a better career, wanted to make more money, wanted
maybe a nicer house and a safer neighborhood, whether I
want to get an F one fifty whatever. You know,
that opportunity will exist if you if you just simply
think ahead. Does that make sense?
Speaker 2 (23:55):
It does.
Speaker 6 (23:56):
And my son and his wife, you know, are definitely
going to be leaving Chicago, especially after the last violent
incident against them. But you know, talking about moving, the
other thing that's moving Sean in Chicago is the crime.
Because the crime when we talked to the police after
they came to you know, after this happened, they said
that the crime was actually leaving the South Side and
(24:19):
some of the West areas and moving into these other
areas that never had high crime. And he said that
this was really a direct result of that safety Act
that they put in place. And these police officers said
that they're really emboldened now to move to these other
areas and they can go after them, but they can't
convict them. And it was interesting because this police officer said,
(24:44):
you know, I'm a minority. He was a minority, and
he said, I don't care what color their skin is.
They belong in jail. They don't belong on the streets.
You know, they don't have They shouldn't be out there
committing crimes and taking away the freedom of the regular
guys around the street, whereas these criminals are given the
freedom to go on to mind all these crimes on
the streets.
Speaker 3 (25:03):
So he was very listen.
Speaker 1 (25:04):
I'm just saying to people, if I was stagnant and
I had a limitation, well, I'm only gonna do radio
where I live, I never would have been successful in
my life. And I've lived in six different states and
it was the best experience ultimately in my life too.
And I'm just telling people opportunities coming. There are nicer
(25:25):
places to live, There are nicer people to be around
than the people in big cities. And I predict that,
you know, this migration out of New York and California
and Illinois. And if New Jersey doesn't vote for Jack Chadarelli,
I would argue New Jersey's probably right there on the
list as well. And this is New Jersey. This is
(25:46):
your last shot. You're in the game here according to polls,
you got a shot. And I would urge you to,
you know, every single one of you in New Jersey
that here's this show, go out and vote and you
have a chance to maybe salvage Jersey and it's maybe
your last chance. But look, Margaret, I appreciate the call.
(26:06):
God bless you. Eight nine one, Sean if you want
to be a part of the program. Uh, Tommy Michigan
next on the Sean Hannity Show. Hey Tommy, how are you?
Speaker 4 (26:16):
Sean? How you doing? Thank you?
Speaker 3 (26:19):
What's going on?
Speaker 2 (26:19):
Hey?
Speaker 4 (26:20):
I got a question. You know, all these judges that
oversee like when they try to put Trump in jail
for you know, one hundred years and all these other Republicans.
You know, why is it sewn that it always seems
like there's a far left, liberal Trump hating judge that
oversees the case and they don't get a fair trial,
(26:42):
especially with the jury pool, like say in New York.
And then now when Trump's going after some of these people,
you know, like you know, Komy and Bolton, and it's like,
I'm thinking they're gonna get They're gonna get a Trump
hitting liberal judge. It's going to be on their site.
Aren't there any Aren't there any conservative right wing judges
(27:02):
in the system? Is it? Like just luck?
Speaker 3 (27:05):
Not a lot of them.
Speaker 1 (27:07):
I mean there are some, you know, they tend to
be in red states and red jurisdictions, and you know, like,
for example, the problem we have, especially with Komy and
the House Judiciary referring former CIA director Brennan to the
DOJ for lying to Congress, and we went through that earlier.
(27:28):
Jim Jordan will be on TV to talk about it tonight.
Is the statute of limitations on many of the things
we're discussing as long since expired. This is the remaining
low hanging fruit. It's it is not the crux of
what I believe they were involved in. That's my own
personal opinion, you know, having covered these stories now for
(27:51):
years and years and years, it's frustrating to me, but
it is what it is. And yeah, we have a
two tier justice system. You have judicial activism on the
left and then you have constitutionalists, which is what you
prefer on the court.
Speaker 4 (28:06):
Yeah, you had that one March se on it's like, oh,
you know what. He he hated Trump, and it's like,
you know what, And they said, oh, it was a
pool of judges. There weren't all liberal Democrats. It just
happened to he flipped up and he was going to
be the one. And it's like, I don't believe that
for a second. You know, if you do, I got
ocean front property in Iowa for sale. You know, it's
(28:27):
like some of these I don't. I just don't get
it sewn.
Speaker 1 (28:30):
And it just well, I mean, because you have you
have a sense of honesty, fairness, and a belief that
you know, a coequal branch of government should be objective
and not subject to a bias and prejudice and an agenda.
What liberals cannot get done at the ballot box, so
(28:50):
they can't get done legislatively, they race to these activist
justices and jurists in the hopes that they will implement
this policy.
Speaker 3 (28:57):
I mean, it's.
Speaker 4 (28:58):
Insane and yep.
Speaker 3 (29:00):
I mean the story that I.
Speaker 1 (29:02):
Mentioned earlier that the Appeals Court rules that Trump can
send troops to Oregon. The fact that Donald Trump, you know,
had to deal with one hundred and fiftieth suit that
has been brought against him. They're trying to drown him
in legal issues even to this day because they just
mad they lost the election. Anyway, my friend, I do
appreciate you, appreciate your call.
Speaker 3 (29:22):
Right, that's gonna wrap things up for today.
Speaker 1 (29:24):
Hannity Tonight, say a DVR, nine Eastern on the Fox
News Channel. We have Donald Trump Junior, We have Ted Cruz,
Mark Levin, the Great One, Jim Jordan announcing that they
have put forward a referral to the DOJ. On John Brennan,
we'll have all those details. Brett Behar, Joe Conscious say
DVR Hannity tonight, nine Eastern on Fox. Will see you
(29:46):
then back here tomorrow. Thank you for making this show possible.
All right, News, roundup, information, overload hour. Here's our toll
(00:02):
free number. It's eight hundred and ninety four one sean
if you want to be a part of the program.
A lot to talk about, the Schumer shutdown, the President
taking on these narco terrorists. What should the role of
the federal government be in all of this. We have
an update on the issue in the battle and the
conflict out of Russia with Ukraine. The President canceling this
(00:24):
upcoming meeting with Putin because he won't agree to cease fire,
which I think is the right message to send. We
still have a lot you know, Hamas is not abiding
by the agreement, which, as the President said, he's going
to give the green light for Israel to go in
there and pretty much annihilate Gaza and Hamas. If they
(00:45):
won't do it themselves, this is sort of their last chance.
We welcome back to the program, Senator Rampaul of Kentucky.
The president's pretty pissed off of you.
Speaker 2 (00:54):
Know, I wouldn't go that far. We've had some spats
in the past, and you know.
Speaker 3 (01:01):
I'd go that far. He's pretty pissed off.
Speaker 2 (01:04):
I've known the President for over a decade. You know,
I've played golf with him dozens of times. We still
have our moments, But I think at the same time,
people in America, particularly Republicans, still want there to be
a voice for balanced budgets, less spending, fiscal responsibility, and
right now I'm in and so I think we'll continue
(01:25):
to have that debate. But I still support the President
on quite a bit of the agenda, lower taxes, I
love what he's done with the border. So there's a
lot of agreement as well.
Speaker 1 (01:34):
So I find myself in an amiable position. I'm going
to have to defend something that I don't fully support,
and principle I agree with you on And you know,
I don't like government shutdowns in the sense that, all right,
we know what happens with him, I'm not as afraid
of them. I'm consistent when Democrats shut the government down,
(01:56):
Republicans shut the government down.
Speaker 3 (01:57):
I'm like, it's not the end of the world.
Speaker 1 (01:59):
Everyone going to get a free vacation, come back and
get back pay. That's how it always ends, one way
or the other, and that's how this one is going
to end. It's just now a matter of time. They
had I think they had to get through their no
King's weekend. Democrats were not going to piss off their
base in the lead up to these protests this weekend,
so you will not vote to reopen the government with
(02:20):
a continuing resolution. Now, the problem that it gets more
nuanced than complicated. As you know, Republicans don't have sixty votes.
They the Democrats, with the exception of maybe John Fetterman
and one or two others, you know, there are not
enough votes. The Democrats are holding the country hostage by
(02:45):
demanding one point five trillion in new spending. That includes
you know, billions for hundreds of billions for moneies for
illegal immigrants.
Speaker 3 (02:53):
Healthcare.
Speaker 1 (02:53):
That includes continuing the Obamacare subsidies that Joe Biden put
in place during COVID, which was supposed to be to
That includes funding MPR and PBS and DEI initiatives around
the globe.
Speaker 3 (03:07):
That's insane.
Speaker 1 (03:08):
That's never going to happen, and I think it's only
a matter of time till they cave. Then they go
to a continuing resolution, which is where negotiation begins. But
Republicans don't have the votes to do what you want.
Your caucus doesn't have them. And I'm just looking at
it from a realistic standpoint, and I know you're taking
a principal stand. I admire principal stands. I just we're
(03:31):
never going to get to where you want unless we
take first steps.
Speaker 2 (03:33):
In my view, Well, the debate is over what the
spending level should be. So the Republican Continuing Resolution would
add about two trillion in debt over the next year.
The Democrat plan would add over three trillion. So I'm
opposed to the Democrat plan, but I'm also opposed to
the Republican plan because they both add two trillion to
three trillion in debt. And there is another alternative. I've
put it forward. It's a Penny Plan, and it would
(03:55):
balance the budget over five years. Each year the deficit
would be less Now, if I'm gone, and if everybody
marches lockstep and everybody just does what they're told, that
there'll be no Penny Plan, there'll be no voice for
the Penny Plan, There'll be no voice for balanced budgets.
I don't have the votes now, but if you ask
the people across the country that people listening to this program,
(04:17):
are they with me that we should be balancing the
budget and lessening the debt? Or should I vote for
the Biden spending levels from last year. See the Republican
c Are is a continuation of the Biden spending levels
from December of last year. The irony is every Democrat
up here actually voted to these spending levels last December.
A lot of conservatives voted against them. Now the roles
(04:38):
have switched for the exact same spending numbers. You've got
Republicans voting for the Biden spending levels and Democrats voting
against them. And I'm the only voice up here talking
about that the debt instead of being two trillions, should
be less. And people say, well, I.
Speaker 3 (04:53):
Want to be clear.
Speaker 1 (04:53):
And you've been on this program and we've discussed the
Penny Plan many many times over the years. I've been
a long time I'm advocate of the Penny Plan since
Connie Mack introduced it many years ago in the House.
Maybe we're up to the two cent plan or five
of the Nickel Plan.
Speaker 3 (05:09):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (05:10):
But to me, there are two things that are that
are going on simultaneously that give me hope. One is
the President has commitments of seventeen trillion dollars in new
manufacturing monies for semiconductors, automobiles and pharmaceuticals. Also a new
deally made on rare earths with Australia eight point five trillion.
(05:31):
I think it's going to be critical for national defense.
The President also has opened up energy dominance, and I
think that's going to lead to an enormous impact on
the economy over time. When Reagan dropped the tax rates
from seven eight to twenty eight percent, we doubled revenues
to the government and it led to twenty one million
new jobs, longest period of peacetime economic growth. The problem
(05:54):
back then is the problem we faced today. Congress spent
a buck twenty five for every new dollar he brought
in he doubled revenue. So I'm with you on the
Penny Plan. I just you know, at this time, with
the Senate configured as it is, I don't see any
Democrats supporting it.
Speaker 2 (06:11):
Yeah, they don't. And what's going to happen, though, is
in the end the big government, Democrats and Republicans will
join hands. This is what always happens. The government will
open up. They won't stay close forever. It's going to
open in the next week or two, and the Democrats
will join the Republicans. But there still has to be
a voice. Historically, there's been a voice more than one person.
Right now, it's me my. Historically, there have been other
(06:34):
Conservatives that did not vote to raise the debt ceiling,
that did not vote for Republican plans to raise the debt.
Now they're all moving in lockstep, and I'm ostracized. You know,
I'm the one that's catching the flack. But if I'm
not here, there is no voice left if I'm not.
Speaker 3 (06:51):
You have you had this conversation directly with the president.
Speaker 2 (06:55):
I have, and sometimes it goes well and sometimes not
so well. It depends on his mood. But I think
he fundamentally has agreements, and he's just been told by
you know, the people influencing him the most now are
actually the establishment Republicans, not the conservative Republicans. He's influenced
by the leadership, and he's influenced by let's just get
(07:15):
rid of these things.
Speaker 3 (07:15):
We can't do this.
Speaker 2 (07:16):
We don't have the votes, so we're going to do that,
And some of that is the expediency of the day.
But I don't think we have fundamental disagreements. That's why
I downplay how much he may or may not be
angry with me because, like I say, I've not him
for a decade, and there are many things I like
about him. I'm still the voice that liked the president
who didn't like the Iraq war, the president who didn't
(07:38):
like Obama's Libyan war, and so I continue to be
that voice. But if I'm quiet, or if I am
just become a rubber stamp, there's nobody from the you know,
less interventionist wing on foreign policy. He's only hearing the interveners,
he's only hearing the bombers, and so there has to
be people who stand up for things. It doesn't mean
we always have to agree. I mean, look, you and
(07:59):
I I have had a lot of great conversations. We
don't always agree, but you're always respectful to me, and
I like coming on. And the thing is is we
don't have to agree on everything.
Speaker 1 (08:10):
Well, let me there's only two ways to fix the deficit.
Reduce spending, okay, which is like, you know, an exorcism
for DC, and increase revenues. I'm pretty confident that the
President's you know, tax cuts, his energy policies, the seventeen trillion,
and new investments in the country, which is unprecedented.
Speaker 3 (08:33):
We've never had.
Speaker 1 (08:33):
That is going to increase revenues to the government so
that that side of the equation is done. Reducing spending
is always going to be the hard part, and you know,
these guys, you know, think they get their power by
increasing spending. Let me ask you on the foreign policy front,
were you against taking out Iran's nuclear sites.
Speaker 2 (08:54):
I think that we when we have an action of
war against another country, should be voted on by Congress first.
Any kind of offensive action. I think the founders intended
that Congress would vote on these. It's what the Constitution mandates.
So I'm not for having unchecked executive power. Now, whether
that was a good thing or bad things another discussion,
(09:15):
you know, whether or I would have voted for it.
I think that there, you know, were reasons to think
that it would succeed, and it did. But as far
as with it.
Speaker 1 (09:23):
The president does have sixty days to act without going
to Congress if he's going to engage a military action
at you know, enumerated powers and the Constitution. As commander
in chief, you don't disagree with.
Speaker 2 (09:35):
That, Well, the Constitution says that to declare war, an
offensive action that is planned has to be voted on
by Congress.
Speaker 1 (09:42):
First, well, you know, if you go back historically, no
president has ever been abiding by any of these resolutions.
And I think, as commander in chief, do you not
agree that Iranian the Iranians with nuclear weapons is an
existential threat to the entire way world because it was
obvious to me in a window of opportunity opened up,
(10:04):
and I believe it's fully constitutional the president out of
the authority to do so. Well talking about the War
Powers Act, to be specific, the.
Speaker 2 (10:12):
Debate with the Founders was pretty explicit, from Hamilton all
the way over to Jefferson. They disagreed on a lot
of things. They disagreed on the extent of the central government,
but they all agreed that the president shouldn't declare war
have offensive actions without the approval of Congress. You know,
there have been times we have voted to go to
war and we've been much more united as a country.
World War II was one. It was a defensive war
(10:33):
fought against people who attacked us. After nine to eleven
we were attacked as well. We voted in Congress to
vote in Congress. I think it was four hundred and
thirty four to one on the House side, and I
think ninety nine to zero. In the Senate side, I
think we can people think, oh, it's impractical to vote
in Congress. It actually brings us together. It also means
that all the representatives bear responsibility. If we don't all
(10:56):
vote for it, we go to war on a decoration
by the president, then what happens is I think people
could nitpick and backstab and do to that, and we've
become less united as a country. If we all vote
for it, then it's the responsibility of everybody voted for it.
Speaker 1 (11:11):
Oh to me, if you know, this was the problem
with the lead up to the Iraq conflict in my
view is we were telegraphing, telegraphing, telegraphing, and it allowed
I believe at the time, you know, everybody to prepare
and then put our troops in greater harms way.
Speaker 3 (11:29):
I think.
Speaker 1 (11:30):
Look, I like the Trump doctrine. I believe he's right
with no forever wars. I think the military actions that
he's taken, whether if he did, his defeat of the
Caliphate was critical for world security and for American security.
Taking out Solomani, the world's worst terrorist, was the right
thing to do the same with Bagdaddy. I thought at
(11:52):
the time it was appropriate to drop the mother of
all bombs on Afghanistan. And I think again, in the
case of taking out the Iranian nuclear sites, we had
a window of opportunity and a president as commander in chief.
I believe as the authority. Past presidents seem to have
agreed with me. No president has agreed with your interpretation
(12:15):
of what our framers founders said, and it's been in
dispute since, you know, for decades and decades now that
if you have a window of opportunity to make the
world a safer place in the long run, and he
did it without creating a forever war. I kind of
like the Trump doctrine, and I would think that part
of it you like too.
Speaker 2 (12:34):
I think most presidents up through Roosevelt, up through World
War Two did agree that we didn't go to war
without a vote, even George Bush.
Speaker 1 (12:41):
Really there wasn't called way you defining as a war.
Every military action is not necessarily a war.
Speaker 2 (12:47):
I would say that a planned offensive action is if
your ship through attack at sea. So let's say your
ships are off because of yeahmen and they're being bombed
by the Hooties. To respond to those as is not
an act of war because it's a defensive action attacking
and self defense, the same as the Barbary Pirates was
an act of self defense. When you're being attacked by
(13:08):
all means, you always have the mind the ability to
respond without a vote of Congress.
Speaker 1 (13:12):
Well, we know Iran and killed the Americans in Iraq
and Afghanistan and elsewhere, and they've been fomenting terror throughout
the region and targeting American.
Speaker 2 (13:20):
Well, then the vote should be pretty easy. You bring
it to Congress, and I think Congress probably would have
approved of it. But I think these debates need to
happen because there's still some unknowns. Well, right now, it
looks like it was a really good, well planned executed
and the result was good. There is still a question
although the uranium still still exists, the uranium didn't disappear,
there is a question will they continue on and we
(13:43):
don't know because they would do this in secret. Will
they continue on with development of the bomb because of
the attacks or will they be chastened? And I think
there is some evidence that they are chasing I think
there is a great deal of evidence at this point
the bombing had good effect that their ancillary.
Speaker 1 (13:59):
Goal do you worry that we're putting troops at risk
because we surrender the element of surprise.
Speaker 2 (14:05):
Well, I don't think anybody was surprised by this either.
They talked for it for two bloody weeks, you know,
before he bombed them. It was explicitly discussed in the
media for weeks and weeks that it was coming, and
that the resolution isn't to bomb you any certain day
and time or place. The resolution is that we are
a state of war. The reason it makes a difference too,
is because then you don't have to have any process.
(14:26):
You kill the enemy. It's the same problem we have
with Venezuela. Now, without any kind of decoration of war,
we are killing people accused of running drugs, but we
don't have any evidence of who they are or that
there actually are smuggling drugs. All we have is an accusation.
Speaker 4 (14:41):
And you can do that.
Speaker 2 (14:41):
In a war. But you can't let the president declare
a war. You have to go through Congress. So there
is a much more uniform or much more universal approval
of the war.
Speaker 1 (14:51):
Well, no modern day president has followed those rules, as
you know, and I think that it is I think
the enumerated power as president commander in chief. He's got
to be able to take military strikes when opportunity presents
itself to keep the nation safe. I think he did
the right thing in the case of Iran. I love
the fact that twelve days later there was even peace
with Israel and Iran. So and the world is safe
(15:14):
for place as a result of it. People that are
smuggling drugs in our country, I'm sorry they are attacking
Americans and trying to kill Americans. I don't care if
you guys have a vote on it or not. Frankly,
I'd love to put the Democrats on record being against it.
Speaker 3 (15:30):
Anyway.
Speaker 1 (15:30):
Always fun. We appreciate your time, Senator ram Paul, Thank you, sir.
Speaker 2 (15:34):
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (15:37):
All right to our busy phones as we say hi
to Jeffrey in Washington State. Jeffrey High, how are you,
and We're glad you called.
Speaker 5 (15:46):
I'm well, Sean. I'm just want to say personal thanks
to you and your team for the great work you
do keeping this the electric informed of what we need
to be informed about to keep our country great.
Speaker 3 (16:00):
It's our pleasure to be here every day.
Speaker 1 (16:01):
You make it possible for us to continue doing this job.
Speaker 3 (16:05):
We appreciate you.
Speaker 1 (16:06):
And it's our goal every day to give you news
information in a little bit of an entertaining way to
you know, you know, it's our job is kind of easy.
We're the opposite of the mainstream media. You know, they
don't talk about what we talk about. They just kew
everything and they're just you know, locked up in Trump's
arrangement syndrome twenty four to seven.
Speaker 3 (16:27):
But thank you. It is my main point.
Speaker 5 (16:30):
Yeah, for sure. As I've been following the issue regarding
the Blue state resistance to the federal government's help and
the National Guard recently the exposure of the bounties and
the threats from the cartels, gangs and Antifa, it's caused
me to ask the question, is there any impact from
(16:53):
these organizations on say the governor of Illinois or the
mayor such that that's them to look away or to
push back because they're getting pressure from themselves personally or
for a particular threat to their power in their state.
And I just haven't heard anything. Wondered if your group
had had had heard anything to that effect.
Speaker 1 (17:15):
Look, I know of no such connections. Nothing in this
day and age and all the years I've been doing
this would shock me or surprise me. I don't know why.
You know how you can be the governor of a state,
have four thousand people dead, have five times the homicide
murder rate than New York City, and you're more mad
at Donald Trump for trying to for offering you help
(17:39):
to secure safety and law and restore law and order
in your state. Is beyond any understanding comprehension I have.
It defies all logic, It defies all common sense to me.
But that is Chicago, that is New York City. New
York City now is on the precipice of electing a
guy that wants to hire social workers and replace police
(18:02):
with social workers. You're on the precipice of the you
know here you have the largest tax city in the nation,
and he's gonna raise taxes further. He's offering everything for free,
free buses, you know, more, rent, free apartments. He lives
in a rent stabilized apartment, which is unbelievable to me,
considering he's a man of means. He has plenty of
(18:23):
money to pay for a free market apartment. And I'm
telling you what the net predictable net result is gonna be.
They're gonna leave and people that can afford to leave
will leave, and people that can't afford to leave will
be stuck. And all these promises that it's it's I
wrote a whole chapter and live for your die always
ends the same way, unfulfilled promises, more poverty, not less,
(18:49):
and a loss of freedom in the name of false
government security. And if you don't believe me, ask yourself.
You know, how are things working out in your town
or city with government run schools, with defund dismantled no
bail laws. How are things working out where democrats are
in charge? Not very well. So you know, we'll watch,
(19:13):
we'll learn it's going to be a case study over
time that this is all a failure. But you know,
I New York City is New York City. There's a
reason I don't live in the state of New York anymore.
I mean, when I say I'm out of New York,
I am totally disconnected from New York.
Speaker 3 (19:30):
I am done. I am out. That's it.
Speaker 4 (19:33):
You know.
Speaker 1 (19:34):
I'll occasionally go see my sister, occasionally, you know, do
an event for Fox.
Speaker 3 (19:39):
Short of that, I don't go there.
Speaker 5 (19:40):
Well, Hey, we appreciate all you're doing. We can sure
use your input out here. In Washington State, that's for sure.
Speaker 1 (19:48):
Washington. You might want to consider, you know, Idaho next door.
You might want to consider Vegas or Nevada or Arizona,
or you know, there's a lot of great states you
could move to. Maybe Montana, Wyoming. I don't know, and
I guess Liz Cheney is still in Wyoming, but the
politics are much better there.
Speaker 3 (20:06):
Anyway, appreciate it.
Speaker 1 (20:07):
Jeffrey eighth and nine four one sean number if you
want to call in Margaret, New York, New York.
Speaker 3 (20:14):
What's up, Margaret? How you doing.
Speaker 6 (20:16):
I'm doing well, Shawn. Thank you for taking my call,
and thanks for your team as well, for all the
efforts that you put out for us, we the people.
So you highlight things a lot about You talk about
Chicago crime, and people who say that Trump doesn't have
any business being in Chicago have clearly not actually experienced
(20:39):
any of the crime in Chicago.
Speaker 4 (20:41):
Because it's bad.
Speaker 1 (20:42):
Oh it's horrible. I have I have five times the
murder rate of New York City. That tells you everything
you need to know, doesn't it?
Speaker 6 (20:50):
It does? And you know my son who lives just
west of Bucktown. I don't know if you know the
area of Bucktown or Chicago, but he just lives west
of Bucktown and he's he've been in two gang shootouts
just because he was on the street walking to his
car and one time had to dive under a car
to escape the bullets. And then more recently, my son
(21:12):
and his wife were walking in broad daylight and they
were held up at gunpoint and robbed in broad daylight.
Speaker 1 (21:22):
That that's life in the big city. I mean, I
told you they have the lowest They have the lowest
population now in Chicago than they've had in decades, and
it's declining. What's happening. People are are leaving with their feet.
And I'll tell you what else is going to happen.
Here's my prediction to when when the Trump seventeen trillion
of manufacturing gets online and energy dominant policies and jobs
(21:47):
created get online, when the tax cuts kick in, and
you know, you see the economy churn like it did
under Reagan. You know, seventy to twenty eight percent on
one million new jobs are created. What I'm urging people
to do is consider removing any self imposed obstacle to
(22:11):
success in your life. And what I mean by that
is is going to be coming online, and we're on
track now to create high paying career jobs that probably
won't be in your town or your city. Now you
can put a self imposed limitation on your life, or
you know, you could look at these opportunities for new
(22:34):
auto manufacturing plants are going to be built, find out
where they're built. Put in an application if you want one.
Same with pharmaceuticals new manufacturing schedule to be online, put
in put in an application, the same thing with semiconductor chips.
I mean, every one of these industries that are going
to be building out the next year are going to
(22:57):
be career, high paying jobs for working Americans. And the
same in the oil industry. And we did this. You know,
years ago, we were able to match companies with people
and they'd moved to North Dakota or they'd moved to
Texas or Oklahoma. And people that were making thirty thousand,
forty thousand dollars a year, well, you know, we started
(23:17):
making one hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year and
to transform their life. So emerging people pay attention, be
ahead of the curve, and there's opportunity coming, and it's
coming quickly. And and I urge the people in this
audience to be smarter than everybody else, because you already
are smarter than everybody else. But if I found myself
(23:38):
in a position I wasn't happy with what I was
doing with my life, and I wanted, let's say I
wanted a better career, wanted to make more money, wanted
maybe a nicer house and a safer neighborhood, whether I
want to get an F one fifty whatever. You know,
that opportunity will exist if you if you just simply
think ahead. Does that make sense?
Speaker 2 (23:55):
It does.
Speaker 6 (23:56):
And my son and his wife, you know, are definitely
going to be leaving Chicago, especially after the last violent
incident against them. But you know, talking about moving, the
other thing that's moving Sean in Chicago is the crime.
Because the crime when we talked to the police after
they came to you know, after this happened, they said
that the crime was actually leaving the South Side and
(24:19):
some of the West areas and moving into these other
areas that never had high crime. And he said that
this was really a direct result of that safety Act
that they put in place. And these police officers said
that they're really emboldened now to move to these other
areas and they can go after them, but they can't
convict them. And it was interesting because this police officer said,
(24:44):
you know, I'm a minority. He was a minority, and
he said, I don't care what color their skin is.
They belong in jail. They don't belong on the streets.
You know, they don't have They shouldn't be out there
committing crimes and taking away the freedom of the regular
guys around the street, whereas these criminals are given the
freedom to go on to mind all these crimes on
the streets.
Speaker 3 (25:03):
So he was very listen.
Speaker 1 (25:04):
I'm just saying to people, if I was stagnant and
I had a limitation, well, I'm only gonna do radio
where I live, I never would have been successful in
my life. And I've lived in six different states and
it was the best experience ultimately in my life too.
And I'm just telling people opportunities coming. There are nicer
(25:25):
places to live, There are nicer people to be around
than the people in big cities. And I predict that,
you know, this migration out of New York and California
and Illinois. And if New Jersey doesn't vote for Jack Chadarelli,
I would argue New Jersey's probably right there on the
list as well. And this is New Jersey. This is
(25:46):
your last shot. You're in the game here according to polls,
you got a shot. And I would urge you to,
you know, every single one of you in New Jersey
that here's this show, go out and vote and you
have a chance to maybe salvage Jersey and it's maybe
your last chance. But look, Margaret, I appreciate the call.
(26:06):
God bless you. Eight nine one, Sean if you want
to be a part of the program. Uh, Tommy Michigan
next on the Sean Hannity Show. Hey Tommy, how are you?
Speaker 4 (26:16):
Sean? How you doing? Thank you?
Speaker 3 (26:19):
What's going on?
Speaker 2 (26:19):
Hey?
Speaker 4 (26:20):
I got a question. You know, all these judges that
oversee like when they try to put Trump in jail
for you know, one hundred years and all these other Republicans.
You know, why is it sewn that it always seems
like there's a far left, liberal Trump hating judge that
oversees the case and they don't get a fair trial,
(26:42):
especially with the jury pool, like say in New York.
And then now when Trump's going after some of these people,
you know, like you know, Komy and Bolton, and it's like,
I'm thinking they're gonna get They're gonna get a Trump
hitting liberal judge. It's going to be on their site.
Aren't there any Aren't there any conservative right wing judges
(27:02):
in the system? Is it? Like just luck?
Speaker 3 (27:05):
Not a lot of them.
Speaker 1 (27:07):
I mean there are some, you know, they tend to
be in red states and red jurisdictions, and you know, like,
for example, the problem we have, especially with Komy and
the House Judiciary referring former CIA director Brennan to the
DOJ for lying to Congress, and we went through that earlier.
(27:28):
Jim Jordan will be on TV to talk about it tonight.
Is the statute of limitations on many of the things
we're discussing as long since expired. This is the remaining
low hanging fruit. It's it is not the crux of
what I believe they were involved in. That's my own
personal opinion, you know, having covered these stories now for
(27:51):
years and years and years, it's frustrating to me, but
it is what it is. And yeah, we have a
two tier justice system. You have judicial activism on the
left and then you have constitutionalists, which is what you
prefer on the court.
Speaker 4 (28:06):
Yeah, you had that one March se on it's like, oh,
you know what. He he hated Trump, and it's like,
you know what, And they said, oh, it was a
pool of judges. There weren't all liberal Democrats. It just
happened to he flipped up and he was going to
be the one. And it's like, I don't believe that
for a second. You know, if you do, I got
ocean front property in Iowa for sale. You know, it's
(28:27):
like some of these I don't. I just don't get
it sewn.
Speaker 1 (28:30):
And it just well, I mean, because you have you
have a sense of honesty, fairness, and a belief that
you know, a coequal branch of government should be objective
and not subject to a bias and prejudice and an agenda.
What liberals cannot get done at the ballot box, so
(28:50):
they can't get done legislatively, they race to these activist
justices and jurists in the hopes that they will implement
this policy.
Speaker 3 (28:57):
I mean, it's.
Speaker 4 (28:58):
Insane and yep.
Speaker 3 (29:00):
I mean the story that I.
Speaker 1 (29:02):
Mentioned earlier that the Appeals Court rules that Trump can
send troops to Oregon. The fact that Donald Trump, you know,
had to deal with one hundred and fiftieth suit that
has been brought against him. They're trying to drown him
in legal issues even to this day because they just
mad they lost the election. Anyway, my friend, I do
appreciate you, appreciate your call.
Speaker 3 (29:22):
Right, that's gonna wrap things up for today.
Speaker 1 (29:24):
Hannity Tonight, say a DVR, nine Eastern on the Fox
News Channel. We have Donald Trump Junior, We have Ted Cruz,
Mark Levin, the Great One, Jim Jordan announcing that they
have put forward a referral to the DOJ. On John Brennan,
we'll have all those details. Brett Behar, Joe Conscious say
DVR Hannity tonight, nine Eastern on Fox. Will see you
(29:46):
then back here tomorrow. Thank you for making this show possible.
The Sean Hannity Show News
Host
Sean Hannity
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
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
CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist
It’s 1996 in rural North Carolina, and an oddball crew makes history when they pull off America’s third largest cash heist. But it’s all downhill from there. Join host Johnny Knoxville as he unspools a wild and woolly tale about a group of regular ‘ol folks who risked it all for a chance at a better life. CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist answers the question: what would you do with 17.3 million dollars? The answer includes diamond rings, mansions, velvet Elvis paintings, plus a run for the border, murder-for-hire-plots, and FBI busts.