Speaker 1: Hey everybody. I'm Greg Jared, filling in for Sean Hannity
Speaker 1: on the Sean Hannity Show. Happy to be here for
Speaker 1: the second day in a row. Shaw's taking off a
Speaker 1: few well deserved days of rest or in the holidays.
Speaker 1: I've been at Fox. I'm a legal analyst there for
Speaker 1: going on twenty four years. I've written several books, beginning
Speaker 1: with the Russia Hoax, the Sequel witch Hunt, I wrote
Speaker 1: The Trial of the Century, and the latest book is
Speaker 1: The US Constitution and other patriotic documents. Please check them out.
Speaker 1: But I want to begin today with the burr in
Speaker 1: my saddle over fraud. Have you ever wondered where a
Speaker 1: lot of your hard earned tax dollars go? Well, look
Speaker 1: no further than the screwed up state of Minnesota. It
Speaker 1: is a blue state, to be sure, run by idiots
Speaker 1: and morons that are so utterly incompetent. If they failed
Speaker 1: to refuse to recognize one of the greatest ripoffs in
Speaker 1: American history, Minnesota is now the epicenter of fraud. We're
Speaker 1: talking about roughly two billion dollars with a capital B
Speaker 1: stolen by scammers from social service programs. In fact, there
Speaker 1: were so many swindles going on at the same time.
Speaker 1: You'd need a float chart just to keep track of
Speaker 1: them all. And of course, at the top of the
Speaker 1: float chart should be a big fat picture of Governor
Speaker 1: Tim Walls and his sidekick Keith Ellison, the state's scandal
Speaker 1: plugued attorney general. Together, those two are the dumb and
Speaker 1: dumber of politics, and both are to blame because they
Speaker 1: were repeatedly warned of all the hustles and flim plans
Speaker 1: going on in their precious Somali community. But they didn't care.
Speaker 1: Now they thought it would be racist to prosecute Somali constituents,
Speaker 1: so they happily allowed the fraud to continue and indeed
Speaker 1: to escalate. You see, in uber liberal Minnesota, it is
Speaker 1: politically incorrect to enforce the law against Somali's God forbid,
Speaker 1: putting criminals behind bars might lose some votes. Not only
Speaker 1: did Waltz turn a blind eyed all the conjobs going
Speaker 1: on under his bulbous nose, he actually helped them flourish.
Speaker 1: Evidence shows he was told repeatedly of the ginormous COVID
Speaker 1: fraud scandal early on, but instead of fixing it, he
Speaker 1: worked to protect it and to cover it up. He
Speaker 1: allegedly aided and abetted all of the schemes, retaliating against
Speaker 1: whistleblowers who had come forward with courage to try to
Speaker 1: expose the fraud. Waltz tried his level best to discredit
Speaker 1: the fraud reports themselves. So you know that's not merely
Speaker 1: rank in competence, it's intentional malfeasance. No wonder Walt's admitted
Speaker 1: during the vice presidential debate that he's a knucklehead. Really,
Speaker 1: he actually said that, and by the way, nobody has
Speaker 1: ever disagreed with that assessment. The guy is a total buffoon.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't trust him to run a hot dog stand,
Speaker 1: and yet he has the audacity to run for reelection,
Speaker 1: So you know he can ruin Minnesota further with even
Speaker 1: more corruption. Tim Waltz is so clueless that his own
Speaker 1: state workers that the Department of Human Services denounced his
Speaker 1: epic incompetence. They issued an official statement saying Waltz's one
Speaker 1: hundred percent responsible for fleecing more than a billion dollars
Speaker 1: from taxpayers. Look, is anybody really surprised? I mean, this
Speaker 1: is what happens when the government begins handing out free
Speaker 1: money while relying on states like Minnesota for oversight. I mean,
Speaker 1: the scammers and the grifters are having a field day.
Speaker 1: The pandemic relief was supposed to be administered by Waltz's
Speaker 1: Education Department, but they were so inept under his leadership
Speaker 1: or lack thereof, that it became a piece of cake
Speaker 1: to steal hundreds of millions of dollars in phony claims.
Speaker 1: Money that was supposed to go to feed needy children
Speaker 1: was stolen by scammers who splashed their cash on luxury homes,
Speaker 1: fancy cars, elaborate vacations, lavish lifestyles. They were yucking it up.
Speaker 1: In one case alone, they claimed to have served ninety
Speaker 1: one million meals that were never served, for which they
Speaker 1: fraudulently received two hundred and fifty million dollars in federal funds.
Speaker 1: Those are your tax dollars going into the pockets of
Speaker 1: Minnesota cruks. I can't think of anything lower than stealing
Speaker 1: money from hungry children, or taking money away from kids
Speaker 1: who were supposed to be receiving autistic services that never happened.
Speaker 1: But that's not all. Housing programs were also ripped off
Speaker 1: in Minnesota. In fact, the list is so long that
Speaker 1: one former US attorney estimates that the total figure will
Speaker 1: likely surpass two bills billion dollars in fraud. Trump is
Speaker 1: vowed to prosecute and then deport the Somali criminals responsible
Speaker 1: for all that fraud. But Timmy Waltz calls that petty vindictiveness.
Speaker 1: I'm not kidding. In the twisted world of Waltz, the
Speaker 1: law should be selective, because you know, equal enforcement of
Speaker 1: the law is racist. It's not just the wicked world
Speaker 1: of Waltz, but mega thefts are now being discovered in Ohio,
Speaker 1: where you guessed it. Somali's reportedly perpetrated a massive Medicaid
Speaker 1: theft involving healthcare payouts based on fake medical conditions. All right,
Speaker 1: that's appalling, But is anybody surprised since Obamacare, one of
Speaker 1: the greatest deceptions of all time, opened the door to
Speaker 1: a wholesale plundering of our nation's treasury. The General Accounting
Speaker 1: Office says that Obamacare subsidies are costing you, the taxpayers,
Speaker 1: some twenty seven billion dollars a year. Twenty seven billion
Speaker 1: in fake identities, dead people, and improper use of Social
Speaker 1: Security numbers. And then there's food stamps or we're not
Speaker 1: supposed to call them food stamps anymore, because that's what
Speaker 1: they are. We call them snap payments. Well, those are
Speaker 1: rife with fraud. Hundreds of thousands of people are getting
Speaker 1: government money, except they're dead, so you know they're not
Speaker 1: eating a lot. Don't get me started on my home
Speaker 1: state of California. Massive unemployment fraud has recently been uncovered
Speaker 1: that resulted in billions of stolen dollars. Get this, up
Speaker 1: to thirty one billion dollars that was paid to criminals,
Speaker 1: including people behind bars. Education fraud, healthcare fraud, Medicare fraud
Speaker 1: in California has been uncovered. Again, that's your money down
Speaker 1: the drain, and Gavin Newsom doesn't care, except to the
Speaker 1: extent that his former chief of staff was caught and
Speaker 1: charged in one of those schemes. Here's the bottom line.
Speaker 1: Democrats say they care about the needy, except they don't.
Speaker 1: That's just a ruse. It's a pretense for something else.
Speaker 1: They use the needy. They exploit the needy to strong
Speaker 1: arm the government into handing out benefits so that the
Speaker 1: cash can then be by their constituents, and people like
Speaker 1: Tim Waltz look the other way, and always liberal democrats
Speaker 1: want more. They will ruthlessly and persistently dig deep into
Speaker 1: your pockets until they're empty, and then they demand more
Speaker 1: of your income with higher taxes. It's the old socialist
Speaker 1: stratagem that seems appealing to some until, as Margaret Thatcher
Speaker 1: famously observed, you eventually run out of other people's money.
Speaker 1: That's the history of socialism. It's a well worn story
Speaker 1: of failure and collapse. Later on in our program, I'm
Speaker 1: going to be talking with Peter Schweitzer about this. He's
Speaker 1: president of the Government Accountability to Institute, and he is
Speaker 1: certainly an expert on the subject of fraud. Peter also
Speaker 1: wrote the book called Clinton Cash, so he's going to
Speaker 1: tell us about the recent news of how the FBI's
Speaker 1: corruption probe into Hillary Clinton's suspected pay to play schemes
Speaker 1: was killed by her protectors in Barack Obama's administration. We're
Speaker 1: going to take a quick break right now. Coming up,
Speaker 1: we have, in addition to Peter Schweizer, I'll be talking
Speaker 1: to Mike Davis about whether any of the people involved
Speaker 1: in the law fair crusade against Donald Trump will ever
Speaker 1: be held accountable with indictments. I think there'll be indictments
Speaker 1: in the beginning of the new year. We'll also talk
Speaker 1: to Brian Finch about Trump's attacks on Caribbean drug boats
Speaker 1: tied to Venezuela. Are they legal?
Speaker 2: They are.
Speaker 1: We'll be right back. I'm Greg Jared filling in for
Speaker 1: Sean Hannity.
Speaker 2: Are you ready to get out of the media spin room? Well,
Speaker 2: you've come to the right place.
Speaker 1: It is the Sean Hannity Show. Welcome back to the
Speaker 1: Sean Hannity Show. I'm Greg Jared filling in for Sean.
Speaker 1: A few minutes ago, I mentioned, in the context of
Speaker 1: all the fraud going under the nose of Tim Waltz
Speaker 1: in Minnesota, how he's incompetent, and in fact, he admitted
Speaker 1: in the vice presidential debate when he was running with
Speaker 1: kamalaw that he's a knucklehead. And so I want to
Speaker 1: play you know, some people have said, and I've mentioned
Speaker 1: it before, have said, oh, did he know he didn't
Speaker 1: really he didn't call himself enough. Yeah he did. And
Speaker 1: I'm going to play the clip for you right now.
Speaker 1: Here's the context. Waltz is a known liar, and he
Speaker 1: got caught many times in lies. The number of times
Speaker 1: he was in China he claimed he was there at
Speaker 1: the time of the Tienneman Square massacre in nineteen eighty nine.
Speaker 1: Record show he wasn't there. He was in the United States.
Speaker 1: So a moderator asked him during the debate, and here's
Speaker 1: what Timmy Waltz had to say.
Speaker 3: Governor Walls, you said you were in Hong Kong during
Speaker 3: the deadly Tienanmen Square protests in the spring of nineteen
Speaker 3: eighty nine, But Minnesota Public Radio and other media outlets
Speaker 3: are reporting that you actually didn't travel to Asia until
Speaker 3: August of that year. Can you explain that discrepancy?
Speaker 4: Ye?
Speaker 5: Yeah, Well, and to the folks out there, it didn't
Speaker 5: get at the top of this. Look, I grew up
Speaker 5: in small, rural Nebraska town of four hundred town that
Speaker 5: you rode your bike with your buddies till the street
Speaker 5: lights come on, and I'm.
Speaker 2: Proud of that service.
Speaker 5: Now, look, my community knows who I am. They saw
Speaker 5: where I was at they look. I will be the
Speaker 5: first to tell you I have poured my heart into
Speaker 5: my community. I've tried to do the best I can,
Speaker 5: but I've not been perfect, and I'm a knucklehead at times.
Speaker 5: I will say more than anything. Many times I will
Speaker 5: talk a lot. I will get caught up in the rhetoric,
Speaker 5: but being there, the impact it made, the difference it
Speaker 5: made in my life, I learned a lot about China.
Speaker 3: Governor. Just to follow up on that, the question was,
Speaker 3: can you explain the dipancy?
Speaker 5: All I said on this was is I got there
Speaker 5: that summer and misspoke on this. So I will just
Speaker 5: that's what I've said.
Speaker 1: What a slee's ball, But there it is. He called
Speaker 1: himself a knucklehead, and no truer words wherever spoken the
Speaker 1: guy as a buffoon. He's an incompetent governor of Minnesota,
Speaker 1: and he's running for reelection amid all of the fraud,
Speaker 1: which may roughly be two billion dollars of your taxpayer money.
Speaker 1: Coming up later, I'll talk to Peter Schweizer about it.
Speaker 1: He knows all about the fraud in Minnesota. But I
Speaker 1: also want to talk to Peter about how the Department
Speaker 1: of Justice under Barack Obama, probably under the President's orders,
Speaker 1: decided to kill and bury the growing corruption investigation into
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton's foreign pay to play schemes which enriched the
Speaker 1: Clinton Foundation, and of course they use that foundation as
Speaker 1: their personal piggy bank. There's considerable evidence. Bill and Hillary
Speaker 1: got rich from foreign donations made to their Clinton Foundation, which,
Speaker 1: as I say, was really their own bank account. We're
Speaker 1: talking about hundreds of millions of dollars, and as I
Speaker 1: wrote in my book The Russia Hoaks back in twenty eighteen,
Speaker 1: many of the largest contributions were made by people and
Speaker 1: shell companies. There's a red alert connected to a Russian
Speaker 1: controlled business called Uranium One, which managed, through a series
Speaker 1: of clever maneuvers, to seize control of a sizeable percentage
Speaker 1: of America's prized uranium assets. I'm reading directly out of
Speaker 1: my book. All of this happened as Hillary was serving
Speaker 1: as Secretary of State, and of course the inevitable allegations
Speaker 1: of corruption followed, and the FBI became so concerned that
Speaker 1: it opened a criminal investigation into a pay to play
Speaker 1: scheme involving Hillary and her foundation. The bureau gathered evidence
Speaker 1: that the foreign cash may have illegally influenced US foreign
Speaker 1: policy under Hillary Clinton. Peter wrote about it. I wrote
Speaker 1: about it. We'll be talking with him coming up on
Speaker 1: the Sean Hannity Show. Solid as a rock, honest, truthful.
Speaker 5: This is the Sean Hannity Show.
Speaker 1: Hey, Welcome back to the Sean Hennity Show on Greg Jarrett.
Speaker 1: Of course, Donald Trump and his administration has been going
Speaker 1: after drug cartels smuggling deadly fentanyl, cocaine, synthetic opolioids into
Speaker 1: the United States that have killed more than three hundred
Speaker 1: thousand young people since twenty twenty one. So you know,
Speaker 1: they've carried out strikes against suspected drug vessels in the region.
Speaker 1: In the Caribbean, they've seized a sanctioned oil tanker off
Speaker 1: the coast of Venezuela, declared a blockade of all sanctioned
Speaker 1: oil tankers entering and leaving Venezuela. And Trump has said
Speaker 1: on more than one occasion that strikes on land in
Speaker 1: Venezuela could be coming sometime soon. Secretary of State Marco
Speaker 1: Rubio had this to say on that subject today.
Speaker 6: At the core, foreign policy needs to be the national
Speaker 6: interest of the United States. So you have to first
Speaker 6: of all define what is the national interest, and then
Speaker 6: you have to apply it. We defined it as we
Speaker 6: are in favor of foreign policies that make America safer,
Speaker 6: or stronger, or more prosperous, hopefully all three, but at
Speaker 6: least one of those three, and then it requires you
Speaker 6: to prioritize. Even the richest, most powerful and influential country
Speaker 6: on Earth has limited resources, has limited time, and it
Speaker 6: has to be able to dedicate those resources in time
Speaker 6: through a process of prioritization that includes geographic prioritization. It
Speaker 6: also cludes issue prioritization. When it comes to the Western Hemisphere,
Speaker 6: the single most serious threat to the United States and
Speaker 6: the Western Hemisphere is from transnational terrorist criminal groups primarily
Speaker 6: focused on narco trafficking, but they're in all sized businesses
Speaker 6: as well. So the good news is we have a
Speaker 6: lot of countries in the region that openly cooperate and
Speaker 6: work with us to confront these challenges.
Speaker 1: All right, that was Marco Rubio. Let's bring into the
Speaker 1: conversation now our guest today Brian Finch, who is a
Speaker 1: top notch lawyer. He's a partner with Pillsbury Winthrop. He
Speaker 1: co chairs the firm's Global security practice, and Brian has
Speaker 1: been covering the ongoing Venezuela narco terrorism and the dictatorship
Speaker 1: under Maduro. As I say, the President and Secretary of
Speaker 1: War have been doing everything they can to prevent these
Speaker 1: boats from onboarding their drugs to American Shores. Brian, thanks
Speaker 1: so much for being with us. You and I've talked
Speaker 1: about this before, But in your legal opinion, does this
Speaker 1: administration have every legal right to defend its citizens from
Speaker 1: the lethal poison by using lethal military force.
Speaker 4: Of course, it's a basic constitutional tenant that the president
Speaker 4: has the authority to do that. I mean, that's he's
Speaker 4: the commander in chief of the military. There are dozens
Speaker 4: upon dozens of examples throughout American history where the president
Speaker 4: has acted unilaterally to defend the name from any type
Speaker 4: of threat, and this falls squarely into that category once again.
Speaker 4: And folks who are protesting this, you know, this is
Speaker 4: about being anti Trump. It's not about the president actually
Speaker 4: exceeding his authority. So it's a policy complaint, it's not
Speaker 4: a legal complaint.
Speaker 1: Is there any doubt in your mind that Maduro himself
Speaker 1: and his murderous regime in Venezuela are behind the smuggling, Well, I.
Speaker 4: Mean, it's like any other narco state klyptocracy where of
Speaker 4: course he exerts control with an iron fist. So why
Speaker 4: you've had people trying to flee the country by millions
Speaker 4: over the past decade or so he runs it. Anything
Speaker 4: that happens in the country, happens at his direction or
Speaker 4: at least with his awareness, and whether explicitly or implicitly,
Speaker 4: this is all happening at his direction, more than likely
Speaker 4: his profit as well. Can easily imagine that. So, of
Speaker 4: course this is all happening, you know, with his understanding,
Speaker 4: with his knowledge. It's not his direction at this point,
Speaker 4: So it's his responsibility, and the president is right to
Speaker 4: direct actions against him personally and against his regime to
Speaker 4: protect Americans.
Speaker 1: Back to the legality of it all, the cartels are
Speaker 1: officially designated by our government as armed terror organizations, and
Speaker 1: as such they are are they not enemy combatants and
Speaker 1: can be legally targeted by Trump under the president's constitutional
Speaker 1: war powers. And no, you do not need consent from Congress.
Speaker 1: Wasn't it long ago given by Congress when they approve
Speaker 1: the authorization for use of military force?
Speaker 4: It absolutely was. And even if people will point to
Speaker 4: the War Powers Act, for example, to say that the
Speaker 4: president has to go to Congress to explain what he's
Speaker 4: doing and seek their consent, very good argument that the
Speaker 4: War Powers Act is itself unconstitutional. Yes, and so as
Speaker 4: the president, he can certainly consult with Congress if Congress
Speaker 4: wants to weigh in, they can do so. They have
Speaker 4: in fact been doing so. The chairman of the Armed
Speaker 4: Services Committee, Mike Rogers from Alabama, he looked into the questionable,
Speaker 4: you know, the questionable complaints about the one strike and
Speaker 4: whether that was a violation of the law of war,
Speaker 4: and the chairman walked away saying, I'm perfectly satisfied. The
Speaker 4: president's been doing everything by the book, by the law,
Speaker 4: and so he's acting fully within his constitutional authority. And oh,
Speaker 4: by the way, enemy comments, there's also a good argument
Speaker 4: that these are illegal combatants, much like we've said with
Speaker 4: al Qaeda and ISIS in the Taliban back in the
Speaker 4: early two thousands, and they don't necessarily get the protections
Speaker 4: of law war in those cases.
Speaker 1: Right that legal scholars, many of them, have said that
Speaker 1: the War Powers Act, passed by Congress it was a resolution,
Speaker 1: is unconstitutional, and in fact past presidents have ignored it,
Speaker 1: including Barack Obama. And of course he used the so
Speaker 1: called wall run Terrorism Statutes to take similar actions as
Speaker 1: President Trump. Didn't he.
Speaker 4: Oh, President Obama actually went further than anything that President
Speaker 4: Trump is doing. President Obama issued a very length or
Speaker 4: had a very lengthy memorandum written that justified him killing
Speaker 4: American citizens overseas without any sort of due process as
Speaker 4: long as they were suspected of being associated with terrorists
Speaker 4: or presenting a potentially eminent threat to the United States.
Speaker 4: It's the President Obama's legal team, and he agreed said
Speaker 4: that he could order lefold drone strikes against American citizens
Speaker 4: anywhere in the world as long as it met those conditions,
Speaker 4: and he did so. He did so hundreds of times.
Speaker 4: So you look at the complaints that are being lodged
Speaker 4: against the president and his team about violations of the
Speaker 4: law of work. It's silly. And you know, I've been
Speaker 4: thinking a lot about this, greg and it it's remarkable
Speaker 4: but also predictably pathetic that you see such unanimity about
Speaker 4: violations with the president with lav War, those alleged violations
Speaker 4: of lah War. You couldn't get that same unanimity about
Speaker 4: Hamas going out and killing women, children, babies on October seventh,
Speaker 4: clearly in violation of every law in the world. But
Speaker 4: in those cases they said, well that's you know, there
Speaker 4: were some justifications there, so call that any sort of
Speaker 4: illegal acts that are are so evil. So it just
Speaker 4: goes to show the hypocrisy and the lengths that the
Speaker 4: president's opponents will go to in order to claim that
Speaker 4: he is just the worst man in the history of
Speaker 4: the United States. And you and I in the listeners, now,
Speaker 4: it's just not true. It's just sad rhetoric that is
Speaker 4: cloaked and illegal vernacular when all in reality is is
Speaker 4: Trump arrangement syndrome.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it really is. And you know, Democrats and their
Speaker 1: media handmaidens or you know, raging still against TROMP. But again,
Speaker 1: they didn't seem to care when Barack Obama went after
Speaker 1: terrorism targets with deadly drone strikes. In fact, he approved
Speaker 1: five hundred and forty plus strikes, killing roughly three four
Speaker 1: hundred people. Joe Biden did pretty much the same thing
Speaker 1: in Yemen, in Syria and Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. But
Speaker 1: you know, when Obama and Biden to it, it's perfectly lawful,
Speaker 1: according to Democrats in the media. When Trump does it,
Speaker 1: it's somehow war crimes that's legally absurd, isn't it.
Speaker 4: It absolutely is. And by the way, you know, to
Speaker 4: paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, you know who find somebody who want
Speaker 4: to shoot shoot him? And I think that's that's the
Speaker 4: case here. If we find keros, whether they're in the
Speaker 4: Middle East or they're in Latin America, South America, or
Speaker 4: wherever they are, and they are threatening America's lives, they
Speaker 4: are actively participating in killing Americans. Yeah, they need to
Speaker 4: be subject to the military force. And again it's you know,
Speaker 4: the hypocrisy and the irony. You know, there was incredible
Speaker 4: glee going after the manufacturer of opioids and oscar winning
Speaker 4: movies about the crusades against them. But then you go
Speaker 4: after the makers of cocaine, seanel and all these other drugs,
Speaker 4: and oh, my goodness, we violated the Geneva Convention. It's
Speaker 4: just it's just a sad playbook that shows the desperation
Speaker 4: of striking out against someone who doesn't fit in this
Speaker 4: politically correct mold, doesn't use the language they like, and
Speaker 4: isn't pursuing the priorities they want. And so again, it's
Speaker 4: just sad, honestly at the end of the day. And
Speaker 4: the legal arguments are just smoke and mirrors to make
Speaker 4: it sound legitimate, but in reality there's nothing to it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you know, and I keep reading and hearing from
Speaker 1: so called experts. Oh, this is a violation of the
Speaker 1: law of armed conflict, embedded in international law and established
Speaker 1: by the Geneva Conventions in nineteen forty nine. Wait a minute,
Speaker 1: did you guys read that? Because enemy combatants under international
Speaker 1: law can be lawfully targeted with deadly force in any hostilities.
Speaker 1: Those who are protected by that law are civilians and
Speaker 1: medical workers and religious personnel and wounded in six soldiers
Speaker 1: and prisoner of war. But that's not happening here, is it.
Speaker 4: No, No, not at all. It's funny. I'm a bit
Speaker 4: of a history buff and I was reading up on
Speaker 4: some World War II battles where the exact type of
Speaker 4: orders that people are or alleged orders with no quarter,
Speaker 4: et cetera, that you know, supposedly our violation of all this.
Speaker 4: Americans were pursuing it and getting medals for it in
Speaker 4: World War Two, showing no quarter to the Japanese soldiers
Speaker 4: who were on convoys. And again, there are certain rules
Speaker 4: when it comes to the law of war. But anytime
Speaker 4: someone declares that, especially President Trump, has committed an open
Speaker 4: and shut violation of something, particularly something as nebulous and
Speaker 4: in some ways you know, complicated, as a law of war,
Speaker 4: and they say, oh, it's clear violation. You know it's not.
Speaker 4: It is cherry picking facts, cherry picking scenarios and creating
Speaker 4: a fantasy situation and a fantasy case to convict him
Speaker 4: right away. But once you pull it apart, as you
Speaker 4: recognized and our listeners have recognized, this is not a violation.
Speaker 4: This is a president authorizing and executing exactly what he's
Speaker 4: been granted under the Constitution by the founders, and good.
Speaker 1: For him for doing it, all right, Brian Finch, many thanks.
Speaker 1: You're a terrific lawyer. You certainly know the subject matter
Speaker 1: quite well, and thank you for taking the time to
Speaker 1: join us. Brian Finch again, partner at Pillsbury Winthrop. He's
Speaker 1: the CoA chair of the firm's global security practice. So
Speaker 1: thanks again for being with us.
Speaker 4: Always a pleasure.
Speaker 1: Correct, all right, when we come back, we're going to
Speaker 1: take a couple of phone calls. Our number is one
Speaker 1: eight hundred nine four one seventy three twenty six. Give
Speaker 1: me a call, love to hear from you your comments
Speaker 1: or questions. Again, that number is one eight hundred nine
Speaker 1: four one Sean. I'm Greg Jarrett. We'll be right back
Speaker 1: on the Sean Hannity Show.
Speaker 5: Kennedy knows you're tired of government overreach and Big Brother
Speaker 5: watching your every move.
Speaker 1: Now it's time to take back America.
Speaker 2: This is that Hannity Show.
Speaker 1: Back with the Sean Hannity Show on Greg Jarrett right
Speaker 1: to our phone lines. Corbin joins us now from Springfield, Missouri,
Speaker 1: whereas my mother, who lived in Springfield, used to call
Speaker 1: it Missouri. Hey, Corbyn, how are.
Speaker 2: You call it? Whatever you want to? Greg, Hey, I
Speaker 2: just want to talk to you about yesterday and today.
Speaker 2: You've laid out the law to where, you know what
Speaker 2: an elementary kid could understand this thing, and thank you me.
Speaker 2: That's the way that it should be. And I'm kind
Speaker 2: of looking at Okay, here's what Latitia James has done,
Speaker 2: Here's what finally Willis has done. You did, we went
Speaker 2: through what Klemy did here yesterday, and I'm just you know,
Speaker 2: I want to head on a stick. I'm sorry, I
Speaker 2: want a head on a stick. I don't know what
Speaker 2: Pam Bondi's doing, but I don't know if she's doing
Speaker 2: her job or not. You know what, we runed people's
Speaker 2: lives that were there at January sixth. We have somebody
Speaker 2: that actually lives here in the area that was there,
Speaker 2: and I mean the Biden Justice Department went after this guy.
Speaker 2: You know that there was no mercy, no mercy, and
Speaker 2: these people are still walking around free, having a good time.
Speaker 2: I mean, call me puts eighty eighty six forty seven
Speaker 2: on the beach. Yeah, well, I don't know what that means.
Speaker 2: What hell, I know what that means. You do know
Speaker 2: all of America.
Speaker 1: Does, Corbyn? You're preaching to the choir. I agree with
Speaker 1: you one hundred percent, one thousand percent, and I've laid
Speaker 1: it out. I laid it out yesterday. I'm going to
Speaker 1: talk more about it today with Mike Davis in just
Speaker 1: a few minutes actually. But you know, I think in
Speaker 1: the new year we may well see criminal charges against
Speaker 1: a whole host of people who misuse the law to
Speaker 1: destroy Donald Trump, to try to drive him from office.
Speaker 1: And then when he ran for re election in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty four, in the run up to that contest, they
Speaker 1: did the law fair crusade all over again, bringing specious charges,
Speaker 1: phony cases, invented facts against him. And I think they
Speaker 1: need to be held accountable. And there's a grand jury
Speaker 1: that will be convened in Florida and guess what in
Speaker 1: your neck of the woods. Corbin in Missouri a grand jury.
Speaker 1: We'll be right back