January 22, 2026 • 27 mins
In this hour of The Sean Hannity Show, Sean sits down with Senator Mike Lee to break down the SAVE Act—legislation that would require proof of U.S. citizenship to vote in federal elections. They expose how loopholes in the Motor Voter law allow non-citizens to register, why the Senate’s so-called “zombie filibuster” is blocking action, and what it will take to finally force a vote. The discussion also tackles climate alarmism, media narratives, and why voter engagement in the upcoming midterms is critical to preserving election integrity and American sovereignty.
Follow Sean and Our Guests on Social Media:
-
Facebook: facebook.com/SeanHannity
-
X (Twitter): x.com/seanhannity
-
Truth Social: truthsocial.com/@SeanHannity
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):
Two Sean Hannity Show, toll free. It's eight hundred and
nine to four one, Shawn if you want to be
a part of the program. So we do have breaking news.
A third person in Minnesota in this invasion of this
church has in fact been arrested. Federal authorities now arrested
one activist lawyer and Saint Paul's school board member. Another
(00:22):
person involved in this and also a third person has
been arrested. And we keep going back and informing you
that the law does not allow for the invasion of
a church. It's very simple, it's not complicated. It's the
Face Act, and it applies in spite of what Keith
Ellison may tell you because it was designed they'll say
(00:44):
it's design only to protect from abortion rights. The Face Act,
by the way, is designed to protect the rights of
people seeking not only reproductive rights. What is true is
the Face Act is best known for protecting the rights
of people, and it extends to people to worship freely
in this country and exercise their First Amendment religious freedom.
(01:08):
And the law, by the way, bars the conduct that injures, intimidates,
interfears with a person seeking to exercise their First Amendment
right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship,
and all these statutes supply Now as we look at
the comments, you know you listen to Don Lemon, I
(01:28):
mean he was an advocate. He was not an independent
journalist as he claims, praising the church protesters making people uncomfortable.
It was pretty disgusting, despicable what they did to the
people in that church. As a reminder, here's what the
people in that church said and did.
Speaker 2 (01:46):
Reneg renig, where are you? Where are you? Where are you?
Where are your people the house?
Speaker 3 (02:04):
Why are you not at Whipple every day fighting for
the humanity, standing for our people?
Speaker 2 (02:09):
Where are you?
Speaker 3 (02:09):
You drink your coffee, you got your jewelry, you have
your nice clothes.
Speaker 4 (02:13):
But what do you do?
Speaker 2 (02:13):
What do you do to stand for your Somalia Latino communities.
Speaker 5 (02:16):
I'm not gonna come in.
Speaker 2 (02:17):
You have no comment. Exactly you.
Speaker 6 (02:24):
Every day?
Speaker 2 (02:25):
Good all these comfortable white.
Speaker 3 (02:27):
People who are living lavish, comfortable lives while children are
dragged into concentration camps. You're living real life, nice lives
in your lattes, doing absolutely nothing for your Latino and
Samali brothers and sisters.
Speaker 2 (02:38):
You come here to a man wearing a suit is
a preacher. Did Jesus wear a suit? Did Jesus crop
it off? The words no, Jesus would die in you do.
Speaker 5 (02:46):
Not touch me.
Speaker 2 (02:47):
I want you to get and see what happens. You are
a faint Christian.
Speaker 3 (02:51):
Why are you not standing with your Somalia Latino communities?
Why do I not see you out at Whipple every
day protesting this attack on humanity? Where are you? You're
you're pretending to be Christians. We know you live an
easy life, don't you a very easy life? While people
are starting say.
Speaker 1 (03:07):
All right, so again you go back to exactly what
the law says and what the Face Act is, and
it is text focus as far as I'm concerned. One
of the big questions is in the Civil Rights Division
of the DOJ has been very clear they're looking into
Don Lemon and his involvement in all of this, his
(03:29):
advocacy of all of this, his support of all of this,
and here's what he said at the time.
Speaker 7 (03:36):
Well, this is the beginning of what's going to happen
here when you violate people's due process, when you pull
people off the streets and you start dragging them and
hurting them and not abiding by the Constitution. When you
start doing all of that, people get upset and angry.
And if you remember what the civil rights movement is about,
the civil rights movement is about these very kinds of protests.
Speaker 4 (04:00):
Reason, in our modern era.
Speaker 7 (04:02):
People think that in order to have protests, you got
to be, you know, portened off to a certain area.
Speaker 1 (04:08):
Remember the Face Act bars conduct that injures, intimidates, interferes
with a person speaking to exercise the First Amendment right
of religious freedom at a place of religious worship. And
by the way, other federal statutes likewise protect against the
denial of civil rights. Harmei Dlon is with us and
(04:31):
she's done a phenomenal job. She is the Assistant Attorney
General for Civil Rights at the DOJ, and she's here
with an update and the latest on this new arrest
that has taken place.
Speaker 8 (04:43):
Harmony.
Speaker 1 (04:43):
First of all, great job, thank you for being with us,
tell us the latest.
Speaker 6 (04:47):
Well, thanks for having me Shaan and for that lead in.
I'm really excited and proud of our team at the
Department of Justice to report that all three arrests were
made this morning with the outstanding arrestaurants. Nikima le Maybe
the Lee organizer, the lawyer Sean Till. Louisa Allen, member
of the Saint Paul's School boards. In twenty twenty, she
was part of the attack all staring leader and William Kelly,
(05:10):
that crazy looking dude with the beard who was very
aggressive and shouting in the faces of worshipers there. And
you know there is more to come in this case.
People should stay tuned. And I think what I'd love
your audience to know is that a contrary to popular
myth or law and order, we cannot just knock down
doors and arrest people. We have to go to a
(05:33):
judge for felony charges and get an arrest warrant signed,
and the magistrate judge has the opportunity to do thumbs
up or thumbs down on that. So I think your
team your audience can conclude that what happened today was
simply a subset of what we are seeking, and there
hopefully will be more, but only if judges do their
jobs and are dispassionate about their role, which is gatekeeper.
(05:56):
It isn't jury to permit us to afford I am
personally satisfied that every single person in that building violated
multiple federal statutes when they came in and they disrupted
a house of worship, and that is how we were
pursuing it at the Department of Justice, zero tolerance.
Speaker 8 (06:14):
What are the other statutes besides the Face.
Speaker 6 (06:16):
Act the Klan Act. In fact, the three arrest warrants
today were involving a Section two forty one criminal conspiracy.
And this is one of our oldest civil rights statutes
that I'm responsible with the Attorney General for administering. And
it comes out of a time after the Civil War
when Southern law enforcement was harassing newly freed slaves, and
(06:38):
so we had this law that says that it's a
federal criminal conspiracy violation to conspire to violate the civil
civil rights of another American and the invasion of a
church is one of those rights.
Speaker 1 (06:51):
To the extent that you can comment on this and
then I do know it's an ongoing investigation. When you
look at Don lem and his commentary surrounding his so
called independent journalism in this case, it doesn't sound to
me like he was a passive journalist. It sounds to
me like he was an active participant.
Speaker 6 (07:13):
I let's just say that when I say that, I
believe that evidence covers every single unwelcome visitor in the church.
That includes the pseudo journalists who were found by their
own streaming in Don Lemon's case, to be kissing Nikima
(07:33):
Levy in advance, joking about what we are going to
do inside, bringing coffee and donuts to these people, including
interviewing outside William Kelly who was arrested, and then talking
about how the goal of this entire exercise was making
people uncomfortable in a house of worship. We saw images
(07:54):
of children crying and mothers with their arms around them
and godly standing up to protect their families. That's what happened.
Instead of thinking about God and learning about the teachings
of Jesus, they were terrorized in a house of worship.
And this is just insane that journalism does not cloak
you from the obligation to follow our federal laws. And
(08:17):
for those who think this is political, let me remind
them that the Biden do Oj and Kamala Harris, when
she was the Attorney General of California, went after journalists,
some of whom were only actually committing acts of journalism,
and people were prosecuted in January sixth for going in
while they were identifying themselves as journalists and my clients
(08:40):
at Project Veritas were hunted down by the Southern District
of New York while they were researching a story that
they ultimately didn't publish, and the Obama DOJ surveiled and
went after multiple journalists. And so I don't condone going
after journalists because of what they're printing or researching. But
(09:03):
I do when they're violating our federal laws, including harassing
people and shoving a mic into the face of a
pastor and his flock.
Speaker 1 (09:11):
I ask you about the interpretation of the ag Keith
Ellison because he is arguing that the Face Act could
not apply because it was designed solely to protect abortion rights.
And he said the Face Act, by design is designed
to protect the rights of people seeking reproductive rights, so
(09:33):
that people for a religious reason can cannot just use
religion to break into a woman's reproductive health center. That
is not what the Face Act says, is it? Well,
especially provisions two.
Speaker 6 (09:47):
For you're correct, Keith Ellison may have gotten his law
degree from the Leering Center in Minnesota, because when you
read the Face Act, it very clearly text houses of worship.
In fact, it wouldn't have passed without that provision in there.
It is correct that the United States Department of Justice
(10:08):
for three decades never used it to protect houses of
worship until Pam Bondi became the Attorney General and I
became the Assistant Attorney General.
Speaker 5 (10:17):
For Civil Rights.
Speaker 6 (10:18):
So far, I've already used it in the case in
West Orange, New Jersey, of an attack on a synagogue,
and now we're using it the second time. We are
seeking indictments in any event on this, and I believe
they apply here. We will have more bites at the
apple to go back to court to get perhaps additional
charges beyond these. But I believe multiple federal statutes have
(10:39):
been violated here. I have multiple open investigations under the
Face Act SEAN in New York and Los Angeles for
attacks on synagogues. We are going to use this law
as it was intended by Congress.
Speaker 1 (10:52):
Let me ask you this question, and I did ask
many other leaders in the in the Trump administration about
it has to do with sanctuary cities and states. Are
they not by definition aiding and abetting in the law
breaking by helping illegal immigrants? And when they offer you know,
(11:13):
taxpayer funded services, how is that not illegal?
Speaker 6 (11:20):
Well, this is something that we are litigating in court
and investigating, so I'm not going to comment on that,
but I think you can see that the Attorney General
has been extremely aggressive on this front. And when our
state leaders ignore and violate federal law and they coordinate
(11:41):
to do that, that absolutely could be a conspiracy, and
it could be other criminal statutes as well.
Speaker 1 (11:49):
You know what a what a difference one administration over
another makes. I mean, they were looking at moms and
dads at school board meetings, going after peaceful you know,
pro life protesters. There were, you know, all the attempts
to stop peaceful people from just expressing their views. And
(12:10):
in this case, this is a full on disruption of
a church service. But more importantly, what about the obstruction
of people with ICE? And we know the supremacy clause
is clear that federal laws, the jurisdiction to enforce them
lies with the federal government, not with state governments. And
(12:32):
yet they talk about going after ICE agents and arresting
ICE agents and taking licenses away from ICE agents.
Speaker 8 (12:40):
What is your answer to that.
Speaker 6 (12:44):
Yeah, look, it's obvious that there is a Marxist level
disregard for the safety of the very people that some
of these elected officials have been elected to protect and
the idea that you would put the try to sympathize
with and treat with more respect and care people who
(13:07):
invaded our country than the citizens who have the legal
and ethical right and more duty to be here and
right is outrageous. And people need to wake up and
open their eyes and understand that our country is being
stolen from us, not only by invaders, but also by
(13:27):
elected officials who abrogate their duty to the citizens. And
so some of that can be fixed at the ballot box,
and some of that's going to be fixed by the
United States Department of Justice. We will not tolerate the
subordination of Americans citizens, civil rights, to mobs and to invaders.
Speaker 1 (13:48):
All right, Harmony Dillon, who is the Assistant Attorney General
for the Civil Rights Division at the DOJ harmeet, you're
doing a great job. We appreciate your time. Thanks for
the clarification, and we hope to have you back soon.
Speaker 6 (14:04):
Thank you so much, Sehn, take care.
Speaker 8 (14:07):
All right.
Speaker 1 (14:07):
So Jack Smith was on Capitol Hill today. A couple
of great moments. You have Jim Jordan, for example, slamming
Jack Smith over him using Cassidy Hutchinson as a witness,
even though everyone knew she was lying. Now, remember they
had already interviewed the driver. This is about Donald Trump.
(14:30):
Did he try to commandeer the vehicle that was driving
him at the time and direct that driver to drive
to the Capitol. The driver said, it never happened. Cassidy
Hutchinson wasn't there. He was a hearsay hearsay witness, and
she was saying just the opposite. Instead of using the
(14:52):
driver as a direct witness, No, they went to the
person that gave them the narrative that they wanted. And
here's Jim Jordan call him out on it.
Speaker 9 (15:01):
You know how many times Cassie Hutchinson was mentioned in
their report, the January sixth report, Any idea, mister Smith,
I do not one hundred and eighty five times someone
that the whole country knows wasn't telling the truth. And
you were still considering putting her on the witness stand
because you had to get President Trump, and everybody can
(15:22):
see that we're going to put her on the witness
stand if you ever got to trial.
Speaker 10 (15:26):
We had not made final determinations as to who we
were going to.
Speaker 4 (15:29):
Call as the witness. We had a large still considering her.
Speaker 10 (15:32):
We had a large choice of witnesses in this.
Speaker 9 (15:35):
Are you familiar what Washington Post reporters Carol Lenning and
Aaron Davis said in their book? They did his book,
three hundred pages book on chronicle and the whole investigation
of the Justice Department, And here's what they said. On
page three to ten, they said Jack Smith had wondered
whether some of Hutchinson's claims might be relied upon a trial. Still,
at one point, Smith told the elections team he wasn't
(15:56):
ready to give up on Hutchinson's account. Ultimately, however, Trump
administration officials uniformly fiercely disputed her accounts under oath. Prosecutors
on your team told Smith they wouldn't want to use
Hutchinson as a witness in court, and Smith agreed. Are
Caro Lenning and Aaron Davis who wrote this?
Speaker 4 (16:13):
Are they lyon? My recollection?
Speaker 10 (16:16):
Is that I certainly had not made any final determinations
about who we were going to call.
Speaker 4 (16:22):
And that's the point.
Speaker 9 (16:23):
That is the point, the fact that they used her
in a primetime hearing, and you won't rule out using her,
didn't rule out using her putting on the witness stand
when everybody knows she wasn't telling the truth.
Speaker 4 (16:34):
That says it all.
Speaker 9 (16:36):
That's the degree the left and Democrats were willing to
go to get President Trump putting on the witness stand
someone everybody knows is making it up.
Speaker 2 (16:45):
Everybody knows that.
Speaker 1 (16:47):
Wow, pretty powerful. Now leans goodin from Texas grilled Jack
Smith on the details of his swearing in, which we
now know was quite questionable, and why would have needed
a second swearing in?
Speaker 4 (17:02):
Listen, mister Smith.
Speaker 11 (17:04):
On November eighteenth, twenty twenty two, A. G. Garland appointed
you a special counsel. Can you tell me about your
swearing in or the.
Speaker 4 (17:12):
Oath of office that you took after that.
Speaker 10 (17:15):
I don't recall the specifics of it. I know I
was sworn in, I don't recall the specifics of how.
Speaker 4 (17:21):
That was done. You don't remember who swore you in?
Speaker 10 (17:24):
I don't.
Speaker 11 (17:25):
Would you agree that taking the oath of office is
a legal requirement for the job that you had.
Speaker 10 (17:33):
I've taken oaths of office regularly. I haven't researched whether
it's required or not, but I have done that. I
think in every government case.
Speaker 4 (17:41):
It is required.
Speaker 11 (17:43):
Terms I heard earlier today were atypical, irregular no proper procedure.
Yet in your opening statement you said that we've followed
Justice Department policies, and I would assume you meant.
Speaker 4 (17:52):
The law as well.
Speaker 11 (17:54):
It strikes me as odd that you don't remember who
swore you in, how you were sworn in. It's pretty
significant we all get sworn in here, and I remember
every day.
Speaker 4 (18:02):
You don't remember who swore you in.
Speaker 10 (18:05):
I don't remember the details of it as I sit
here today, But.
Speaker 4 (18:07):
You did take the oath of office before you got rolling.
Speaker 10 (18:11):
I think my recollection is it was when I was appointed.
Speaker 4 (18:15):
It was when.
Speaker 11 (18:16):
It strikes me as odd that Attorney General Garland had
you retake the oath of office on the fourteenth of
September of the following year.
Speaker 4 (18:25):
Why did he make you do that?
Speaker 10 (18:27):
As I sit here right now, I do not recall.
I know that there is the oath of office that
I signed. I believe it was on the eighteenth, the
day that I was appointed, and I know the Department
had me do a second one. I don't know the
particulars of why they asked me to do it again,
but I know.
Speaker 11 (18:43):
You signed it on the twentieth of November twenty second
November twenty twenty two, but there was no witness, which
I mean, you have to agree it's a little odd.
Speaker 4 (18:51):
If there's no witness saying that you.
Speaker 11 (18:53):
Took the oath of office, it would maybe make someone
like me question whether or not you were legitimately doing
the job until you finally took the olf of office.
It sounds like the Attorney General had the same question
and thought, oh, we got to have him sign this.
Speaker 4 (19:07):
On the fourteenth day of September of the following year.
Speaker 1 (19:11):
Does anybody believe for a second that he does not
remember that? Does anybody believe that because I don't. Mike
in Canada, next on the Sean Hannity Show, Hi, sir,
how are you glad you're listening?
Speaker 8 (19:25):
Glad you called?
Speaker 5 (19:26):
I want to address upthing that Donald Trump said Ian Davos.
I guess on Tuesday in his rambling commentary on the
State of Things.
Speaker 8 (19:36):
It wasn't exactly rambling.
Speaker 1 (19:38):
I think he was very very straightforward, very articulate, and
very honest.
Speaker 5 (19:44):
Honest Donald Trump. Honest. Okay, fine, that's right.
Speaker 1 (19:48):
I think you well tell me where he was not
Tell me give me one example when he was not honest.
Speaker 8 (19:55):
He was brutally honest.
Speaker 5 (19:58):
Okay, in reference to Canada, the statement that the Canada
lives because of the US, how is that's correct? Anybody?
But that is blatantly false And it's false.
Speaker 1 (20:10):
No, that is one thousand percent true, because if Canada
did not have the military protection of the US, Canada
would be right for the taking. Canada would be less
safe and less secure. And that is just a fact.
(20:31):
And frankly, the President was right in pointing out that
Canada doesn't really appreciate America's contribution to the national security.
Do you think that Canada is capable of it on
its own to protect itself from Russia?
Speaker 5 (20:47):
Because they're not, you said fifty one miles.
Speaker 8 (20:50):
I just asked you a question.
Speaker 1 (20:52):
Is Canada on its own capable of defending itself from Russia?
Speaker 8 (20:57):
Yes or no?
Speaker 5 (20:59):
We won't be in that confrontation. You will provide.
Speaker 1 (21:01):
I didn't ask if you'd be in that confrontation. I'm
asking is Canada on its own capable of protecting itself
from Russia. I'm only naming one geo political potential foe,
is it Yes or no.
Speaker 5 (21:17):
I'm not going to respond to that question. That's a hypothetical.
Speaker 1 (21:21):
It's not a hypothetical question. Look at geography, because you're
right on the border.
Speaker 5 (21:26):
You are on the border between Alaska and the Bering Street.
Speaker 8 (21:31):
That's correct.
Speaker 1 (21:32):
And and Vladimir Putin and Russia know the last thing
they'd ever want is a military confrontation with the USA.
I'm asking you, is Canada capable of defending itself and
its homeland without the help of the US.
Speaker 5 (21:51):
We don't need much from the US. We need the USA.
Respect that.
Speaker 1 (21:54):
That is complete, Adam bull Shift, that is a lie.
You can not defend yourself. You need the USA and
the President. When he said he you're prime minister who
took shots at him the day before he spoke, the
President was one thousand percent correct in saying that without US,
(22:16):
you'd be a sitting duck.
Speaker 8 (22:18):
Hello. Hello, I think.
Speaker 1 (22:21):
We'd call that, Linda a checkmate moment in talk radio.
Speaker 8 (22:24):
Now, he's very upset. Why is he upset? Well, he's
from Canada. You know he's from Canada. There, Ego, there's
a reason.
Speaker 1 (22:35):
Back to our busy phones eight hundred and nine to
four one Sean if you want to join us, Glenn,
Louisiana next.
Speaker 12 (22:42):
Oh, thanks, John, I appreciate giving it. My idea The
insurrection in Minnesota kind of ties in with my thought
about and the Canadian call. But I thought about Greenland
and Canada and Europe. We know that this insurrection could
well be funded from sources through Europe. We also know
that a lot of the negative political schemes come to
(23:03):
us through Europe. Marxism, socialism, community insurrection for us through Europe.
Europe is now taking steps that are antithetical to our constitution.
They're arresting people for religious thought, for prayer or relessed,
arresting people for speech in Canada, arresting people for gathering together,
(23:25):
which is a part of our constitution which is allowed
the right of the samba. So my question is this,
if a country that was formerly an ally I take
so many steps that sort of moves them toward the
area of foe, would not Greenland be smart as a
buffer to all of Europe, not Russia, not China, but
a buffer to what Europe could become, in which case
(23:47):
Canada also might be a great fifty first state. But
I have a feeling that if we did that, we
have even more progressive and more of this thought in
our nation. Thought I'd like to hear Fondervent.
Speaker 1 (23:58):
Look Europe as a multitude of problems. They have immigration
without assimilation and that has caused a major, major, longstanding
problem for them. And I don't know if over time
you could even resolve it. It would take mass deportation
(24:18):
to do it. I don't think they have the willingness
to do it. Their socialist economic policies are killing their economy.
Their adaptation of climate alarmism is killing their entire economic framework.
And you look at their adoption of woke policies that
is hurting them. They like Canada, need the US, and
(24:43):
that's why Greenland is of such geopolitical national security importance,
not only to the US, but to NATO and to
our European allies. And our European allies can balk all
they want, but they need the US. The one president
(25:03):
that knows that they are at the mercy of the
US is Donald J. Trump, and frankly Greenland him making
this deal is not only historic, but it is in
the best national security interests of Europe against the world's
top geopolitical foes that would be Putin and Russia and
(25:26):
Chi and China. And that is a reality that they
seem to be unwilling to, you know, accept When Donald
Trump challenged Europe and NATO allies about their lack of
contribution to national security and defense, he got them to
more than double their contribution, in spite of the fact
(25:47):
that they whined and moaned and complained. When Donald Trump said,
You're not going to rip America off anymore with your
unfair tariffs, they whine, they moaned, they complained, and then
they not only got rid of their tariffs, now they're
paying us. When Donald Trump talked about Greenland, at first
they were whining and moaning, and they sent thirty seven
(26:08):
troops there to defend Greenland, which was just idiotic. Now
we have a deal in place where the president will
protect all of Europe and NATO nations and the US.
And when we get the Golden Dome, you know, finally finished,
it will be a protection the likes of which will
(26:31):
probably be Trump's greatest legacy. So, you know, I mean,
I really don't care about Europe that much, to be honest,
other than the fact that they're destroying their continent and
I don't know if it's gone so far that they
can't fix it at this point.
Speaker 12 (26:49):
I agree so much that at some point we I
think have to wonder whether many of the European countries
are allies or not, and therefore or cream light looms
even larger. That was a thought.
Speaker 1 (27:03):
They're feckless, they're weak, and they're woke. It's a very
bad combination, and the President was right to call them
out there destroying themselves from within. It is a disaster.
I hope they do reverse course. I don't expect that
they will anyway. Appreciate you called my friend eight hundred
(27:25):
and ninety four one, Shawn. If you want to be
a part of the program,
Two Sean Hannity Show, toll free. It's eight hundred and
nine to four one, Shawn if you want to be
a part of the program. So we do have breaking news.
A third person in Minnesota in this invasion of this
church has in fact been arrested. Federal authorities now arrested
one activist lawyer and Saint Paul's school board member. Another
(00:22):
person involved in this and also a third person has
been arrested. And we keep going back and informing you
that the law does not allow for the invasion of
a church. It's very simple, it's not complicated. It's the
Face Act, and it applies in spite of what Keith
Ellison may tell you because it was designed they'll say
(00:44):
it's design only to protect from abortion rights. The Face Act,
by the way, is designed to protect the rights of
people seeking not only reproductive rights. What is true is
the Face Act is best known for protecting the rights
of people, and it extends to people to worship freely
in this country and exercise their First Amendment religious freedom.
(01:08):
And the law, by the way, bars the conduct that injures, intimidates,
interfears with a person seeking to exercise their First Amendment
right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship,
and all these statutes supply Now as we look at
the comments, you know you listen to Don Lemon, I
(01:28):
mean he was an advocate. He was not an independent
journalist as he claims, praising the church protesters making people uncomfortable.
It was pretty disgusting, despicable what they did to the
people in that church. As a reminder, here's what the
people in that church said and did.
Speaker 2 (01:46):
Reneg renig, where are you? Where are you? Where are you?
Where are your people the house?
Speaker 3 (02:04):
Why are you not at Whipple every day fighting for
the humanity, standing for our people?
Speaker 2 (02:09):
Where are you?
Speaker 3 (02:09):
You drink your coffee, you got your jewelry, you have
your nice clothes.
Speaker 4 (02:13):
But what do you do?
Speaker 2 (02:13):
What do you do to stand for your Somalia Latino communities.
Speaker 5 (02:16):
I'm not gonna come in.
Speaker 2 (02:17):
You have no comment. Exactly you.
Speaker 6 (02:24):
Every day?
Speaker 2 (02:25):
Good all these comfortable white.
Speaker 3 (02:27):
People who are living lavish, comfortable lives while children are
dragged into concentration camps. You're living real life, nice lives
in your lattes, doing absolutely nothing for your Latino and
Samali brothers and sisters.
Speaker 2 (02:38):
You come here to a man wearing a suit is
a preacher. Did Jesus wear a suit? Did Jesus crop
it off? The words no, Jesus would die in you do.
Speaker 5 (02:46):
Not touch me.
Speaker 2 (02:47):
I want you to get and see what happens. You are
a faint Christian.
Speaker 3 (02:51):
Why are you not standing with your Somalia Latino communities?
Why do I not see you out at Whipple every
day protesting this attack on humanity? Where are you? You're
you're pretending to be Christians. We know you live an
easy life, don't you a very easy life? While people
are starting say.
Speaker 1 (03:07):
All right, so again you go back to exactly what
the law says and what the Face Act is, and
it is text focus as far as I'm concerned. One
of the big questions is in the Civil Rights Division
of the DOJ has been very clear they're looking into
Don Lemon and his involvement in all of this, his
(03:29):
advocacy of all of this, his support of all of this,
and here's what he said at the time.
Speaker 7 (03:36):
Well, this is the beginning of what's going to happen
here when you violate people's due process, when you pull
people off the streets and you start dragging them and
hurting them and not abiding by the Constitution. When you
start doing all of that, people get upset and angry.
And if you remember what the civil rights movement is about,
the civil rights movement is about these very kinds of protests.
Speaker 4 (04:00):
Reason, in our modern era.
Speaker 7 (04:02):
People think that in order to have protests, you got
to be, you know, portened off to a certain area.
Speaker 1 (04:08):
Remember the Face Act bars conduct that injures, intimidates, interferes
with a person speaking to exercise the First Amendment right
of religious freedom at a place of religious worship. And
by the way, other federal statutes likewise protect against the
denial of civil rights. Harmei Dlon is with us and
(04:31):
she's done a phenomenal job. She is the Assistant Attorney
General for Civil Rights at the DOJ, and she's here
with an update and the latest on this new arrest
that has taken place.
Speaker 8 (04:43):
Harmony.
Speaker 1 (04:43):
First of all, great job, thank you for being with us,
tell us the latest.
Speaker 6 (04:47):
Well, thanks for having me Shaan and for that lead in.
I'm really excited and proud of our team at the
Department of Justice to report that all three arrests were
made this morning with the outstanding arrestaurants. Nikima le Maybe
the Lee organizer, the lawyer Sean Till. Louisa Allen, member
of the Saint Paul's School boards. In twenty twenty, she
was part of the attack all staring leader and William Kelly,
(05:10):
that crazy looking dude with the beard who was very
aggressive and shouting in the faces of worshipers there. And
you know there is more to come in this case.
People should stay tuned. And I think what I'd love
your audience to know is that a contrary to popular
myth or law and order, we cannot just knock down
doors and arrest people. We have to go to a
(05:33):
judge for felony charges and get an arrest warrant signed,
and the magistrate judge has the opportunity to do thumbs
up or thumbs down on that. So I think your
team your audience can conclude that what happened today was
simply a subset of what we are seeking, and there
hopefully will be more, but only if judges do their
jobs and are dispassionate about their role, which is gatekeeper.
(05:56):
It isn't jury to permit us to afford I am
personally satisfied that every single person in that building violated
multiple federal statutes when they came in and they disrupted
a house of worship, and that is how we were
pursuing it at the Department of Justice, zero tolerance.
Speaker 8 (06:14):
What are the other statutes besides the Face.
Speaker 6 (06:16):
Act the Klan Act. In fact, the three arrest warrants
today were involving a Section two forty one criminal conspiracy.
And this is one of our oldest civil rights statutes
that I'm responsible with the Attorney General for administering. And
it comes out of a time after the Civil War
when Southern law enforcement was harassing newly freed slaves, and
(06:38):
so we had this law that says that it's a
federal criminal conspiracy violation to conspire to violate the civil
civil rights of another American and the invasion of a
church is one of those rights.
Speaker 1 (06:51):
To the extent that you can comment on this and
then I do know it's an ongoing investigation. When you
look at Don lem and his commentary surrounding his so
called independent journalism in this case, it doesn't sound to
me like he was a passive journalist. It sounds to
me like he was an active participant.
Speaker 6 (07:13):
I let's just say that when I say that, I
believe that evidence covers every single unwelcome visitor in the church.
That includes the pseudo journalists who were found by their
own streaming in Don Lemon's case, to be kissing Nikima
(07:33):
Levy in advance, joking about what we are going to
do inside, bringing coffee and donuts to these people, including
interviewing outside William Kelly who was arrested, and then talking
about how the goal of this entire exercise was making
people uncomfortable in a house of worship. We saw images
(07:54):
of children crying and mothers with their arms around them
and godly standing up to protect their families. That's what happened.
Instead of thinking about God and learning about the teachings
of Jesus, they were terrorized in a house of worship.
And this is just insane that journalism does not cloak
you from the obligation to follow our federal laws. And
(08:17):
for those who think this is political, let me remind
them that the Biden do Oj and Kamala Harris, when
she was the Attorney General of California, went after journalists,
some of whom were only actually committing acts of journalism,
and people were prosecuted in January sixth for going in
while they were identifying themselves as journalists and my clients
(08:40):
at Project Veritas were hunted down by the Southern District
of New York while they were researching a story that
they ultimately didn't publish, and the Obama DOJ surveiled and
went after multiple journalists. And so I don't condone going
after journalists because of what they're printing or researching. But
(09:03):
I do when they're violating our federal laws, including harassing
people and shoving a mic into the face of a
pastor and his flock.
Speaker 1 (09:11):
I ask you about the interpretation of the ag Keith
Ellison because he is arguing that the Face Act could
not apply because it was designed solely to protect abortion rights.
And he said the Face Act, by design is designed
to protect the rights of people seeking reproductive rights, so
(09:33):
that people for a religious reason can cannot just use
religion to break into a woman's reproductive health center. That
is not what the Face Act says, is it? Well,
especially provisions two.
Speaker 6 (09:47):
For you're correct, Keith Ellison may have gotten his law
degree from the Leering Center in Minnesota, because when you
read the Face Act, it very clearly text houses of worship.
In fact, it wouldn't have passed without that provision in there.
It is correct that the United States Department of Justice
(10:08):
for three decades never used it to protect houses of
worship until Pam Bondi became the Attorney General and I
became the Assistant Attorney General.
Speaker 5 (10:17):
For Civil Rights.
Speaker 6 (10:18):
So far, I've already used it in the case in
West Orange, New Jersey, of an attack on a synagogue,
and now we're using it the second time. We are
seeking indictments in any event on this, and I believe
they apply here. We will have more bites at the
apple to go back to court to get perhaps additional
charges beyond these. But I believe multiple federal statutes have
(10:39):
been violated here. I have multiple open investigations under the
Face Act SEAN in New York and Los Angeles for
attacks on synagogues. We are going to use this law
as it was intended by Congress.
Speaker 1 (10:52):
Let me ask you this question, and I did ask
many other leaders in the in the Trump administration about
it has to do with sanctuary cities and states. Are
they not by definition aiding and abetting in the law
breaking by helping illegal immigrants? And when they offer you know,
(11:13):
taxpayer funded services, how is that not illegal?
Speaker 6 (11:20):
Well, this is something that we are litigating in court
and investigating, so I'm not going to comment on that,
but I think you can see that the Attorney General
has been extremely aggressive on this front. And when our
state leaders ignore and violate federal law and they coordinate
(11:41):
to do that, that absolutely could be a conspiracy, and
it could be other criminal statutes as well.
Speaker 1 (11:49):
You know what a what a difference one administration over
another makes. I mean, they were looking at moms and
dads at school board meetings, going after peaceful you know,
pro life protesters. There were, you know, all the attempts
to stop peaceful people from just expressing their views. And
(12:10):
in this case, this is a full on disruption of
a church service. But more importantly, what about the obstruction
of people with ICE? And we know the supremacy clause
is clear that federal laws, the jurisdiction to enforce them
lies with the federal government, not with state governments. And
(12:32):
yet they talk about going after ICE agents and arresting
ICE agents and taking licenses away from ICE agents.
Speaker 8 (12:40):
What is your answer to that.
Speaker 6 (12:44):
Yeah, look, it's obvious that there is a Marxist level
disregard for the safety of the very people that some
of these elected officials have been elected to protect and
the idea that you would put the try to sympathize
with and treat with more respect and care people who
(13:07):
invaded our country than the citizens who have the legal
and ethical right and more duty to be here and
right is outrageous. And people need to wake up and
open their eyes and understand that our country is being
stolen from us, not only by invaders, but also by
(13:27):
elected officials who abrogate their duty to the citizens. And
so some of that can be fixed at the ballot box,
and some of that's going to be fixed by the
United States Department of Justice. We will not tolerate the
subordination of Americans citizens, civil rights, to mobs and to invaders.
Speaker 1 (13:48):
All right, Harmony Dillon, who is the Assistant Attorney General
for the Civil Rights Division at the DOJ harmeet, you're
doing a great job. We appreciate your time. Thanks for
the clarification, and we hope to have you back soon.
Speaker 6 (14:04):
Thank you so much, Sehn, take care.
Speaker 8 (14:07):
All right.
Speaker 1 (14:07):
So Jack Smith was on Capitol Hill today. A couple
of great moments. You have Jim Jordan, for example, slamming
Jack Smith over him using Cassidy Hutchinson as a witness,
even though everyone knew she was lying. Now, remember they
had already interviewed the driver. This is about Donald Trump.
(14:30):
Did he try to commandeer the vehicle that was driving
him at the time and direct that driver to drive
to the Capitol. The driver said, it never happened. Cassidy
Hutchinson wasn't there. He was a hearsay hearsay witness, and
she was saying just the opposite. Instead of using the
(14:52):
driver as a direct witness, No, they went to the
person that gave them the narrative that they wanted. And
here's Jim Jordan call him out on it.
Speaker 9 (15:01):
You know how many times Cassie Hutchinson was mentioned in
their report, the January sixth report, Any idea, mister Smith,
I do not one hundred and eighty five times someone
that the whole country knows wasn't telling the truth. And
you were still considering putting her on the witness stand
because you had to get President Trump, and everybody can
(15:22):
see that we're going to put her on the witness
stand if you ever got to trial.
Speaker 10 (15:26):
We had not made final determinations as to who we
were going to.
Speaker 4 (15:29):
Call as the witness. We had a large still considering her.
Speaker 10 (15:32):
We had a large choice of witnesses in this.
Speaker 9 (15:35):
Are you familiar what Washington Post reporters Carol Lenning and
Aaron Davis said in their book? They did his book,
three hundred pages book on chronicle and the whole investigation
of the Justice Department, And here's what they said. On
page three to ten, they said Jack Smith had wondered
whether some of Hutchinson's claims might be relied upon a trial. Still,
at one point, Smith told the elections team he wasn't
(15:56):
ready to give up on Hutchinson's account. Ultimately, however, Trump
administration officials uniformly fiercely disputed her accounts under oath. Prosecutors
on your team told Smith they wouldn't want to use
Hutchinson as a witness in court, and Smith agreed. Are
Caro Lenning and Aaron Davis who wrote this?
Speaker 4 (16:13):
Are they lyon? My recollection?
Speaker 10 (16:16):
Is that I certainly had not made any final determinations
about who we were going to call.
Speaker 4 (16:22):
And that's the point.
Speaker 9 (16:23):
That is the point, the fact that they used her
in a primetime hearing, and you won't rule out using her,
didn't rule out using her putting on the witness stand
when everybody knows she wasn't telling the truth.
Speaker 4 (16:34):
That says it all.
Speaker 9 (16:36):
That's the degree the left and Democrats were willing to
go to get President Trump putting on the witness stand
someone everybody knows is making it up.
Speaker 2 (16:45):
Everybody knows that.
Speaker 1 (16:47):
Wow, pretty powerful. Now leans goodin from Texas grilled Jack
Smith on the details of his swearing in, which we
now know was quite questionable, and why would have needed
a second swearing in?
Speaker 4 (17:02):
Listen, mister Smith.
Speaker 11 (17:04):
On November eighteenth, twenty twenty two, A. G. Garland appointed
you a special counsel. Can you tell me about your
swearing in or the.
Speaker 4 (17:12):
Oath of office that you took after that.
Speaker 10 (17:15):
I don't recall the specifics of it. I know I
was sworn in, I don't recall the specifics of how.
Speaker 4 (17:21):
That was done. You don't remember who swore you in?
Speaker 10 (17:24):
I don't.
Speaker 11 (17:25):
Would you agree that taking the oath of office is
a legal requirement for the job that you had.
Speaker 10 (17:33):
I've taken oaths of office regularly. I haven't researched whether
it's required or not, but I have done that. I
think in every government case.
Speaker 4 (17:41):
It is required.
Speaker 11 (17:43):
Terms I heard earlier today were atypical, irregular no proper procedure.
Yet in your opening statement you said that we've followed
Justice Department policies, and I would assume you meant.
Speaker 4 (17:52):
The law as well.
Speaker 11 (17:54):
It strikes me as odd that you don't remember who
swore you in, how you were sworn in. It's pretty
significant we all get sworn in here, and I remember
every day.
Speaker 4 (18:02):
You don't remember who swore you in.
Speaker 10 (18:05):
I don't remember the details of it as I sit
here today, But.
Speaker 4 (18:07):
You did take the oath of office before you got rolling.
Speaker 10 (18:11):
I think my recollection is it was when I was appointed.
Speaker 4 (18:15):
It was when.
Speaker 11 (18:16):
It strikes me as odd that Attorney General Garland had
you retake the oath of office on the fourteenth of
September of the following year.
Speaker 4 (18:25):
Why did he make you do that?
Speaker 10 (18:27):
As I sit here right now, I do not recall.
I know that there is the oath of office that
I signed. I believe it was on the eighteenth, the
day that I was appointed, and I know the Department
had me do a second one. I don't know the
particulars of why they asked me to do it again,
but I know.
Speaker 11 (18:43):
You signed it on the twentieth of November twenty second
November twenty twenty two, but there was no witness, which
I mean, you have to agree it's a little odd.
Speaker 4 (18:51):
If there's no witness saying that you.
Speaker 11 (18:53):
Took the oath of office, it would maybe make someone
like me question whether or not you were legitimately doing
the job until you finally took the olf of office.
It sounds like the Attorney General had the same question
and thought, oh, we got to have him sign this.
Speaker 4 (19:07):
On the fourteenth day of September of the following year.
Speaker 1 (19:11):
Does anybody believe for a second that he does not
remember that? Does anybody believe that because I don't. Mike
in Canada, next on the Sean Hannity Show, Hi, sir,
how are you glad you're listening?
Speaker 8 (19:25):
Glad you called?
Speaker 5 (19:26):
I want to address upthing that Donald Trump said Ian Davos.
I guess on Tuesday in his rambling commentary on the
State of Things.
Speaker 8 (19:36):
It wasn't exactly rambling.
Speaker 1 (19:38):
I think he was very very straightforward, very articulate, and
very honest.
Speaker 5 (19:44):
Honest Donald Trump. Honest. Okay, fine, that's right.
Speaker 1 (19:48):
I think you well tell me where he was not
Tell me give me one example when he was not honest.
Speaker 8 (19:55):
He was brutally honest.
Speaker 5 (19:58):
Okay, in reference to Canada, the statement that the Canada
lives because of the US, how is that's correct? Anybody?
But that is blatantly false And it's false.
Speaker 1 (20:10):
No, that is one thousand percent true, because if Canada
did not have the military protection of the US, Canada
would be right for the taking. Canada would be less
safe and less secure. And that is just a fact.
(20:31):
And frankly, the President was right in pointing out that
Canada doesn't really appreciate America's contribution to the national security.
Do you think that Canada is capable of it on
its own to protect itself from Russia?
Speaker 5 (20:47):
Because they're not, you said fifty one miles.
Speaker 8 (20:50):
I just asked you a question.
Speaker 1 (20:52):
Is Canada on its own capable of defending itself from Russia?
Speaker 8 (20:57):
Yes or no?
Speaker 5 (20:59):
We won't be in that confrontation. You will provide.
Speaker 1 (21:01):
I didn't ask if you'd be in that confrontation. I'm
asking is Canada on its own capable of protecting itself
from Russia. I'm only naming one geo political potential foe,
is it Yes or no.
Speaker 5 (21:17):
I'm not going to respond to that question. That's a hypothetical.
Speaker 1 (21:21):
It's not a hypothetical question. Look at geography, because you're
right on the border.
Speaker 5 (21:26):
You are on the border between Alaska and the Bering Street.
Speaker 8 (21:31):
That's correct.
Speaker 1 (21:32):
And and Vladimir Putin and Russia know the last thing
they'd ever want is a military confrontation with the USA.
I'm asking you, is Canada capable of defending itself and
its homeland without the help of the US.
Speaker 5 (21:51):
We don't need much from the US. We need the USA.
Respect that.
Speaker 1 (21:54):
That is complete, Adam bull Shift, that is a lie.
You can not defend yourself. You need the USA and
the President. When he said he you're prime minister who
took shots at him the day before he spoke, the
President was one thousand percent correct in saying that without US,
(22:16):
you'd be a sitting duck.
Speaker 8 (22:18):
Hello. Hello, I think.
Speaker 1 (22:21):
We'd call that, Linda a checkmate moment in talk radio.
Speaker 8 (22:24):
Now, he's very upset. Why is he upset? Well, he's
from Canada. You know he's from Canada. There, Ego, there's
a reason.
Speaker 1 (22:35):
Back to our busy phones eight hundred and nine to
four one Sean if you want to join us, Glenn,
Louisiana next.
Speaker 12 (22:42):
Oh, thanks, John, I appreciate giving it. My idea The
insurrection in Minnesota kind of ties in with my thought
about and the Canadian call. But I thought about Greenland
and Canada and Europe. We know that this insurrection could
well be funded from sources through Europe. We also know
that a lot of the negative political schemes come to
(23:03):
us through Europe. Marxism, socialism, community insurrection for us through Europe.
Europe is now taking steps that are antithetical to our constitution.
They're arresting people for religious thought, for prayer or relessed,
arresting people for speech in Canada, arresting people for gathering together,
(23:25):
which is a part of our constitution which is allowed
the right of the samba. So my question is this,
if a country that was formerly an ally I take
so many steps that sort of moves them toward the
area of foe, would not Greenland be smart as a
buffer to all of Europe, not Russia, not China, but
a buffer to what Europe could become, in which case
(23:47):
Canada also might be a great fifty first state. But
I have a feeling that if we did that, we
have even more progressive and more of this thought in
our nation. Thought I'd like to hear Fondervent.
Speaker 1 (23:58):
Look Europe as a multitude of problems. They have immigration
without assimilation and that has caused a major, major, longstanding
problem for them. And I don't know if over time
you could even resolve it. It would take mass deportation
(24:18):
to do it. I don't think they have the willingness
to do it. Their socialist economic policies are killing their economy.
Their adaptation of climate alarmism is killing their entire economic framework.
And you look at their adoption of woke policies that
is hurting them. They like Canada, need the US, and
(24:43):
that's why Greenland is of such geopolitical national security importance,
not only to the US, but to NATO and to
our European allies. And our European allies can balk all
they want, but they need the US. The one president
(25:03):
that knows that they are at the mercy of the
US is Donald J. Trump, and frankly Greenland him making
this deal is not only historic, but it is in
the best national security interests of Europe against the world's
top geopolitical foes that would be Putin and Russia and
(25:26):
Chi and China. And that is a reality that they
seem to be unwilling to, you know, accept When Donald
Trump challenged Europe and NATO allies about their lack of
contribution to national security and defense, he got them to
more than double their contribution, in spite of the fact
(25:47):
that they whined and moaned and complained. When Donald Trump said,
You're not going to rip America off anymore with your
unfair tariffs, they whine, they moaned, they complained, and then
they not only got rid of their tariffs, now they're
paying us. When Donald Trump talked about Greenland, at first
they were whining and moaning, and they sent thirty seven
(26:08):
troops there to defend Greenland, which was just idiotic. Now
we have a deal in place where the president will
protect all of Europe and NATO nations and the US.
And when we get the Golden Dome, you know, finally finished,
it will be a protection the likes of which will
(26:31):
probably be Trump's greatest legacy. So, you know, I mean,
I really don't care about Europe that much, to be honest,
other than the fact that they're destroying their continent and
I don't know if it's gone so far that they
can't fix it at this point.
Speaker 12 (26:49):
I agree so much that at some point we I
think have to wonder whether many of the European countries
are allies or not, and therefore or cream light looms
even larger. That was a thought.
Speaker 1 (27:03):
They're feckless, they're weak, and they're woke. It's a very
bad combination, and the President was right to call them
out there destroying themselves from within. It is a disaster.
I hope they do reverse course. I don't expect that
they will anyway. Appreciate you called my friend eight hundred
(27:25):
and ninety four one, Shawn. If you want to be
a part of the program,
The Sean Hannity Show News
Host
Sean Hannity
Popular Podcasts
Two Guys, Five Rings: Matt, Bowen & The Olympics
Two Guys (Bowen Yang and Matt Rogers). Five Rings (you know, from the Olympics logo). One essential podcast for the 2026 Milan-Cortina Winter Olympics. Bowen Yang (SNL, Wicked) and Matt Rogers (Palm Royale, No Good Deed) of Las Culturistas are back for a second season of Two Guys, Five Rings, a collaboration with NBC Sports and iHeartRadio. In this 15-episode event, Bowen and Matt discuss the top storylines, obsess over Italian culture, and find out what really goes on in the Olympic Village.
iHeartOlympics: The Latest
Listen to the latest news from the 2026 Winter Olympics.
Milan Cortina Winter Olympics
The 2026 Winter Olympics in Milan Cortina are here and have everyone talking. iHeartPodcasts is buzzing with content in honor of the XXV Winter Olympics We’re bringing you episodes from a variety of iHeartPodcast shows to help you keep up with the action. Follow Milan Cortina Winter Olympics so you don’t miss any coverage of the 2026 Winter Olympics, and if you like what you hear, be sure to follow each Podcast in the feed for more great content from iHeartPodcasts.