Speaker 1: And we're back with a Sean Hannity Show on Greg
Speaker 1: Jarrett filling in for Sean Hannity. I'm a Fox News
Speaker 1: legal analyst, former trial attorney. Sean's taking a few days off.
Speaker 1: We're going to be taking your phone calls very shortly,
Speaker 1: and we do have some callers here and I'll ask
Speaker 1: them to stand by.
Speaker 2: Thank you for calling. Just hang in there. We'll get
Speaker 2: to you in just a moment.
Speaker 1: For those who would like to post some questions or
Speaker 1: offer comments, please give us a call. The number is
Speaker 1: one eight hundred nine four one seven three two six
Speaker 1: All right. On Tuesday, primary elections were held coast to coast,
Speaker 1: and the endorsement power of President Trump was on full display.
Speaker 1: The candidates that he backed went, according to the President,
Speaker 1: thirty seven to zero. In other words, they all won.
Speaker 1: And that was no small accomplishment because you know, several
Speaker 1: of them were high profile ballot box showdowns. For example,
Speaker 1: Trump was determined to get rid of GOP Representative Thomas
Speaker 1: Massey Kentucky's fourth congressional district, who had developed into a
Speaker 1: very outspoken critic of the president. Massey denounced Trump's foreign policy,
Speaker 1: including the Iran conflict, and he also blamed Trump for
Speaker 1: slow walking the release of the Epstein files. Well, guess what.
Speaker 1: It turned out that the voters in Kentucky got fed
Speaker 1: up with Massey and his efforts to undermine the President's agenda.
Speaker 1: The congressman, who had held that seat for fourteen years,
Speaker 1: was soundly defeated by a newcomer for whom Trump had campaigned.
Speaker 1: Massey lost by almost ten points, which is an astonished
Speaker 1: rejection of an incumbent. In the Senate race in Kentucky,
Speaker 1: the Trump back candidate cruised the nomination to succeed retiring
Speaker 1: Senator Mitch McConnell, rejecting McConnell's handpicked candidate.
Speaker 2: Trump's chosen candidate.
Speaker 1: Also move forward in Alabama, in Georgia, in Louisiana. In
Speaker 1: that last state, Louisiana, Trump went out of his way
Speaker 1: to get rid of incumbent Senator Bill Cassidy, who has
Speaker 1: long been a thorn in the President's side. Cassidy got
Speaker 1: absolutely crushed. So what's the message, Well, it seems to
Speaker 1: be this oppose Trump at your own peril, because he
Speaker 1: will flect his political muscles to exert payback on Republicans
Speaker 1: who defy him, and the question now is will any
Speaker 1: of that translate to the general elections in November. Well,
Speaker 1: joining me now to talk about it is my old
Speaker 1: friend Doug Sean, who was a lawyer and a veteran
Speaker 1: political analyst. And I always turned to Doug because he's
Speaker 1: a Democrat whom I trust to be candid and accurate
Speaker 1: in his assessments. He's not afraid to criticize his own
Speaker 1: party when warranted. So Doug, thanks for taking the time
Speaker 1: to be here. I appreciate it, and I always learn
Speaker 1: a lot from you. And before we get to states
Speaker 1: like Georgia and Texas, which are important and it could
Speaker 1: spell trouble for Republicans in November, what's your reaction to
Speaker 1: the powerful influence that Trump had this week in various primaries.
Speaker 3: You know, Greg, the conventional wisdom now is that the
Speaker 3: Republicans are going to get badly beaten in the midterms,
Speaker 3: and that could well certainly happened. But my message and
Speaker 3: my takeaway, Greg, and thank you for a very kind introduction,
Speaker 3: is that the power of Trump to mobilize voters is
Speaker 3: frankly as great as you state it to be. And
Speaker 3: the president represents it to be. And in a midterm
Speaker 3: election where the issue is turnout, who's going to vote,
Speaker 3: it would seem to me that the greatest asset that
Speaker 3: the GOP has and GOP candidates have is one Donald J. Trump,
Speaker 3: the President of the United States, in mobilizing voters who
Speaker 3: might otherwise not be so inclined to vote when prices
Speaker 3: are high. Were currently in a war that we'd all
Speaker 3: like to successfully get out of, and midterms, as you
Speaker 3: know and we have discussed previously, tend to break against
Speaker 3: the incumbent party. So I think the takeaway is much
Speaker 3: more good news for the Republicans than we might have
Speaker 3: anticipated a week or two ago.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think you're right. In fact, I talked to
Speaker 1: Trump about it. He's well aware of the risks involved
Speaker 1: in a midterm elections for the sitting president, you know,
Speaker 1: it always goes against him historically, and he said, look,
Speaker 1: I'm going to go out and I'm going to campaign
Speaker 1: as if it's a general election for president, and I'm
Speaker 1: on the ballot on the midterm. So we'll wait and
Speaker 1: see if that works. But I want to talk to
Speaker 1: you about Texas because Trump waited until the last minute
Speaker 1: to endorse the state attorney General Ken Paxton, or the
Speaker 1: President describes as a true MAGA warrior. You know, there's
Speaker 1: one week to go into the runoff election against the
Speaker 1: incumbent Senator John Cornyn, and some political pros thing Paxton
Speaker 1: is a gift to Democrats, making it easier for them
Speaker 1: to flip the Texas seat with their chosen candidate, James Talerico,
Speaker 1: who's built quite a war chest. It's felt that Cornyn
Speaker 1: was better equipped to successfully defend the seat in Texas.
Speaker 2: What do you think, god.
Speaker 3: Well, I guess the conventional political wisdom would be exactly
Speaker 3: that Greg, that a more quote moderate mainstream Republican like
Speaker 3: Cornyan would do better than a more activist attorney general
Speaker 3: such as Ken Paxton. I think the problem is, first,
Speaker 3: the polling today shows that the margin between Paxton and
Speaker 3: Cornyan in the primaries very close, and there wasn't a
Speaker 3: clear advantage for Cornyan in the general election. Maybe a
Speaker 3: point or two maybe, but I don't see it. But
Speaker 3: to me, the key variable is Trump, and I believe
Speaker 3: that the Trump endorsement Greg will as it did in
Speaker 3: Louisiana and as it did in Georgia and Alabama, as
Speaker 3: you suggested, I think it'll probably be enough to pull
Speaker 3: Packson over the finish line and everything I've seen of Texas,
Speaker 3: and you know, you're right. I'm a veteran, but going
Speaker 3: back many many years, Texas is a reliably red state
Speaker 3: that my party always believes it's going to win and
Speaker 3: somehow never manages to do so, at least in recent memory.
Speaker 3: So I'd make Paxt a narrow favorite, assuming he is
Speaker 3: the nominee, and that's a big assumption, goes. We haven't
Speaker 3: had the run up, but I don't think he's going
Speaker 3: to be appreciably weaker because the Republican brand and the
Speaker 3: Trump brand, I think are going to be what impels
Speaker 3: people to vote less than perhaps some of the issues
Speaker 3: that Paxton has faced in the past.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think you're right about that, Doug.
Speaker 1: You know, primaries are one thing, general elections or another, Especially,
Speaker 1: as I said before, when the party in power faces
Speaker 1: traditional headwins, it's always a challenging political climate. Historically, the
Speaker 1: party that controls the White House tends to lose seats
Speaker 1: in Congress during the subsequent mid terms. It happened to
Speaker 1: Trump in twenty eighteen, certainly happened to most Democrats presidents
Speaker 1: as well. And look, Trump is getting battered in the polls.
Speaker 1: I saw the it came out yesterday, the Fox News polls.
Speaker 1: Opposition to the Iran conflict grows despite the belief that
Speaker 1: the US is winning, and economic anxiety seems to be
Speaker 1: deepening among Americans. That could be troubling for people who
Speaker 1: vote their wallets and they invariably do they step into
Speaker 1: the voting booth and say what affects me the most, well,
Speaker 1: my empty wallet. And so Democrats are making affordability the
Speaker 1: issue that they're going to run on.
Speaker 3: So smart move, I think it is. Greg My party's
Speaker 3: basic strategy is we don't have a message. We don't
Speaker 3: have a messenger, and we have the polarization and division
Speaker 3: between the far left in the more moderate wing of
Speaker 3: the party, which the progressive seemed to be winning, if
Speaker 3: I am any judge of it. So basically, my party
Speaker 3: sort of says, we don't have anything to run on ourselves,
Speaker 3: so we got to run against Trump. And the one
Speaker 3: issue that we run on is the one, frankly that
Speaker 3: Trump ran on himself, which is it's too darn difficult
Speaker 3: to make it in America. Prices are too darn high
Speaker 3: and Flacusnes is too high, and so vote against the
Speaker 3: incumbent because you have to hold somebody accountable. That's my
Speaker 3: party's best argument. They really don't have much else going
Speaker 3: for them other than that.
Speaker 1: Well, you say they don't have a messenger Kamala, Come on, man,
Speaker 1: Kamala is out there.
Speaker 2: You know, she's got all kinds of ideas.
Speaker 3: Well, Greg, I mean, I think the chance that he
Speaker 3: see has to be the nominee is about zero. Even
Speaker 3: though she's got more name recognition, she doesn't have appreciably
Speaker 3: more votes. And my experience with her, both in the
Speaker 3: presidential general election in twenty twenty four and when she
Speaker 3: was a primary candidate in twenty twenty is that the
Speaker 3: more people see her, the less they like her.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 5: Yeah, you know, Republicans should advocate the Kammaly get out
Speaker 5: there more in talk because when she talks, it's an
Speaker 5: auto turn off.
Speaker 2: You know, Republicans seem to be winning the war.
Speaker 1: On redistricting lately. The Spreme Court finally put a halt
Speaker 1: to Democrats racial jerry mandarin in the Louisiana decision, so
Speaker 1: they could lose a number of seats in the South
Speaker 1: and Midwest. As maps are being withdrawn as a consequence
Speaker 1: of that ruling, and political jerry mandarine backfired spectacularly in Virginia,
Speaker 1: whereas Republicans have actually successfully redrawn maps in their favor elsewhere.
Speaker 1: But you know, changing the maps may not be good enough, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, how do you handicap that?
Speaker 3: Well, it really is a question of how much the
Speaker 3: anti incumbent sentiment, the anti Republican sentiment, how strong that
Speaker 3: is because we're going to have a lot of, as
Speaker 3: you suggest, correctly, new districts, a lot of new candidates,
Speaker 3: and invariably these house races greg have become more a
Speaker 3: test of incumbent versus out party than it is candidate
Speaker 3: A versus candidate B. I would say at this point,
Speaker 3: you're right on both your assertions. You're right to say
Speaker 3: that the Republicans have clearly benefited from the redistricting wars
Speaker 3: so far in the court decisions. But it's also the
Speaker 3: case that we really don't have a sense as to
Speaker 3: where the generic vote laws. I've seen everything from dead
Speaker 3: even to plus in the most extreme left wing pole
Speaker 3: New York Times poll plus eleven Democrats. I assume the
Speaker 3: Democrats are narrowly ahead, But if they're narrowly head three,
Speaker 3: four or five points in the generic vote. That means
Speaker 3: that a lot of these races are going to be
Speaker 3: very very close, and no trend is at this point discernible.
Speaker 1: You know, I tend to ignore the generic ballot because
Speaker 1: you know, you're really in the house talking about district races,
Speaker 1: and it really comes down to whether voters like that
Speaker 1: particular representative. So isn't the generic ballot sort of misleading?
Speaker 3: It is when it's very close, because it doesn't provide
Speaker 3: a clear tip off. But if it's you know, in
Speaker 3: twenty eighteen, it was eight to ten points for the Democrats,
Speaker 3: and when it gets that high, you have what you'd
Speaker 3: call in that instance, a blue wave. In twenty twenty four,
Speaker 3: we had something of a red wave. Certainly twenty ten,
Speaker 3: which we both remember when Obama said we got pasted,
Speaker 3: there was a red wave against Obamacare. So I think, again,
Speaker 3: it's still too early to say, but if the generic
Speaker 3: vote is relatively close, I think you're almost certainly correct
Speaker 3: that it'll come down to a candidate to candidate, district
Speaker 3: to district fight. And it's not lost on me that
Speaker 3: Trump of the Republicans will bring you bringing over three
Speaker 3: hundred and fifty million dollars to bear out from outside
Speaker 3: the system, plus whatever the candidates themselves and the party's race.
Speaker 1: Let me ask you one final question in thrown to
Speaker 1: the mixed fraud scandals. You know, these multi billion dollar
Speaker 1: fraud scandals, they happen in blue cities and states. They
Speaker 1: have created constant headlines. There's another one today in Minnesota,
Speaker 1: ninety billion in fraud. And it damage is Democrats who
Speaker 1: are in charge as either enabling the fraudsters or turning
Speaker 1: a blind eye to it, as Tim Waltz has done
Speaker 1: in Minnesota. And of course voting taxpayers don't like it
Speaker 1: one bit when they're ripped off of their hard earned dollars.
Speaker 1: A factor in the socialist mayors in places like New
Speaker 1: York City and Seattle have managed to drive away businesses
Speaker 1: and sap budget revenues as a consequence, and that hurts
Speaker 1: Democrats as well. Doesn't that impact the midterms?
Speaker 3: You know you are raising greg an issue that is
Speaker 3: I think emerging in people's consciousness because it is just
Speaker 3: a fact that democratic blue cities, particularly those with far
Speaker 3: left mayors, are badly administered. But badly administered is very
Speaker 3: different than ninety billion dollars in fraud, and if the
Speaker 3: Republicans run against fraud and corruption, I think they have
Speaker 3: a chance to neutralize an issue that arguably would be
Speaker 3: one that the Democrats would prefer to deploy against them.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Doug Seawan, you're great. Thank you so much for
Speaker 1: taking the time. We appreciate it. Will be right back
Speaker 1: more of the Sean Hannity Show. I'll be taking your phone.
Speaker 6: Calls, John Hennity.
Speaker 1: Welcome back to the Sean Hannity Show on Greg Jarrett.
Speaker 1: We're going to be getting to your phone calls in
Speaker 1: a couple of minutes. It's Keipen coming. The number is
Speaker 1: one eight hundred nine four one seventy three twenty six
Speaker 1: one eight hundred nine four one Sean. If you have
Speaker 1: a question or a comment to make, I'd love to
Speaker 1: hear from you. We've got callers standing by.
Speaker 5: Hang on.
Speaker 2: There will be right to you.
Speaker 6: You can't always believe what the other side claims.
Speaker 4: That's why there's the Sean Hannity.
Speaker 2: No truer words were spoken.
Speaker 1: I'm Greg Jared Filling and for Sean Hannity on the
Speaker 1: Sean Hannity Show.
Speaker 2: Time now to get to your phone calls, and we
Speaker 2: appreciate the callers on the line. Stand by. I'm going
Speaker 2: to get right to you.
Speaker 1: Our number is one eight hundred and nine four one seven,
Speaker 1: three two six. If you haven't called yet, give us
Speaker 1: a call, one eight hundred and nine to four to one.
Speaker 2: Sean.
Speaker 1: All right, let's get right to it. Buffalo, New York.
Speaker 1: Tom is standing by with a question or comment. Hey Tom,
Speaker 1: how are you good?
Speaker 7: It's not going to be on your show. My comment is,
Speaker 7: I'm wondering if President Trump would consider bombing Iran basically
Speaker 7: every interval six hours, twelve hours, twenty four hours, one
Speaker 7: item minute time, whether it be a power plant, a bridge,
Speaker 7: or whatever, one item minute time on an interval of
Speaker 7: whatever he sets and say keep doing that until they cry.
Speaker 1: Uncle, well a bad idea, presuming we have the armaments
Speaker 1: to do it, and you know I think we do.
Speaker 1: And you know I find it so amazing, if not amusing,
Speaker 1: that when several weeks ago Trump threatened to bomb carg
Speaker 1: Island and the oil depots and the pumping stations and
Speaker 1: so forth.
Speaker 2: You know, Democrats, how that's a war crime. You can't
Speaker 2: you can't bomb their infrastructure.
Speaker 1: Sure you can't. And it's not a war crime. That's
Speaker 1: a silly argument. During World War Two, the Allies bombed
Speaker 1: all kinds of infrastructure, power plants, railroads, you know, depots,
Speaker 1: fuel stations and so forth. And it was incredibly successful.
Speaker 1: And you know, the Nazi planes style flying because they
Speaker 1: didn't have any more fuel, the tanks stop running and
Speaker 1: moving and say it.
Speaker 2: Was very effective.
Speaker 1: It was not a war crime then, and it's not
Speaker 1: a war crime now. It is a ludicrous argument for
Speaker 1: Democrats or anybody to make, Oh gee, it's a war crime.
Speaker 2: You can't do that utter nonsense.
Speaker 7: And doing an interval or intermittently gives them a chance
Speaker 7: to cry uncle. And it's done slowly, monotonously and hit
Speaker 7: them hard on one item at a time or two,
Speaker 7: and just do it on an interval and say as
Speaker 7: soon as you cry uncle, will stop and you sign
Speaker 7: the agreement.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it seems like it's the only thing that's going
Speaker 1: to get the Iranians attention, you know, but they're following
Speaker 1: their traditional playbook, you know, this sort of cat and
Speaker 1: mouse game, delay, delay, delay, make promises.
Speaker 2: That will maybe do we'll sit.
Speaker 1: Down and time stop, you know, firing bombs now, and
Speaker 1: we should have a c spe and then we'll talk
Speaker 1: about it. Oh, yes, we'll stop enriching uranium. And then,
Speaker 1: of course they lie and cheat, and they do it secretly,
Speaker 1: and you know, they they take American presidents for suckers
Speaker 1: until Donald Trump comes along and he actually does something
Speaker 1: about it, right.
Speaker 7: Exactly exactly. And I think if they I think that
Speaker 7: would wake them up, and sooner or later, I don't
Speaker 7: think it would take long. I think they'd say we'll sign.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 1: You know the problem with the Mullas, who were in
Speaker 1: charge in Iran is is that, you know, you can't
Speaker 1: reason with unreasonable people. These people are maniacal. They are
Speaker 1: pathologically you know, liars, and they're destined to cheat, and
Speaker 1: so you can't trust them. So that you know, trust
Speaker 1: but verify, of course, was the famous uh Reagan slogan.
Speaker 1: But unless there is a reliable ability to verify, and
Speaker 1: I don't trust the IA to be a reliable partner
Speaker 1: in that, you know, continued military strikes may be the
Speaker 1: only option. Tom, Thank you so much for calling us
Speaker 1: from Buffalo, New York. Let's go to Tennessee, where Dan
Speaker 1: has been patiently standing by. Hi Dan, how are you.
Speaker 8: Fine? Greg, I'll make this real quick, Greg. I'm not
Speaker 8: sure if you're familiar with what they call the Presidential
Speaker 8: National Security Emergency Declaration. It stems from a nineteen eighty
Speaker 8: three case before the Supreme Court. The significance of it
Speaker 8: is this, as under that particular declaration, the President can
Speaker 8: set forth a judicial order mandating everything that is now
Speaker 8: in the Save America Act, which is not going to pass,
Speaker 8: and that will mean, in effect, when the mid turns come,
Speaker 8: that the Save America Act and the provisions in it,
Speaker 8: even though the Act has not been passed, will be
Speaker 8: effective in the election. And I don't want to comment
Speaker 8: any more on that. I don't know if it's with it,
Speaker 8: I am not qualified.
Speaker 3: Oh you are, okay?
Speaker 9: Oh sure.
Speaker 2: It's fifty USC.
Speaker 1: Sixteen oh one, the National Emergency Act, and it essentially
Speaker 1: grants the president access to, you know, over one hundred
Speaker 1: distinct statutory powers. Once he formally proclaims the emergency, there
Speaker 1: are limits to it. He has to you know, declare
Speaker 1: the emergency in writing, specify you know which law he's activating,
Speaker 1: transmitted to Congress. But you know, it's generally done. If
Speaker 1: there is a as the title of it says, a
Speaker 1: national security threat, that's either foreign or domestic. You know,
Speaker 1: he can do all kinds of things under it again,
Speaker 1: block transactions, regulate trade, freeze assets. It's never been used
Speaker 1: that I'm aware of in an election, But you know,
Speaker 1: I think, Dan, it's an interesting idea and it's you know,
Speaker 1: something that I might consider looking into as a possibility,
Speaker 1: you know, creative idea.
Speaker 4: Dan. Thanks.
Speaker 1: I mean, look, Thune is the villain in all of this,
Speaker 1: you know, right, he's the Senate Majority leader, John Tune.
Speaker 2: And you know he didn't want to.
Speaker 1: Kill the fillibuster to do it, even though he's naive
Speaker 1: if he doesn't think that's the first thing that Democrats
Speaker 1: are going to.
Speaker 2: Do when if, and when they regain.
Speaker 1: Control, they'll kill a filibuster and you know, try to
Speaker 1: do all kinds of things, including packing the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: with additional you know, Katanji Brown Jackson's you know, make
Speaker 1: Puerto Rico and DC states. Yeah, I mean they're gonna,
Speaker 1: you know, with Kamal.
Speaker 2: Harris it out recently.
Speaker 1: Here are the things we need to do, I mean,
Speaker 1: crazy stuff, but that's where Democrats are. But you know,
Speaker 1: Save of America Act should have been passed a long
Speaker 1: time ago. It's a no brainer. Of course you should
Speaker 1: have an ID to make sure when you vote you
Speaker 1: are who you say you are. I was just reading
Speaker 1: the other day, it was yesterday actually about you know
Speaker 1: all the people are who at their homes are receiving
Speaker 1: multiple mail in ballots for people who don't live there.
Speaker 1: And you know, Gavin Newsom has issued in order that
Speaker 1: you know, you don't need to show ID, you don't
Speaker 1: have verify who you are. Fill out the malee in
Speaker 1: ballot as many time as you want, and center it
Speaker 1: on in and make sure that you market for Democrats.
Speaker 2: And you know it's rigged out in California. I hate
Speaker 2: to say that.
Speaker 1: I spent thirty years in California, born and raised there.
Speaker 1: I loved California until it went. You know, nuts, Dan,
Speaker 1: thanks very much, appreciate a good idea. Let's go to Utah.
Speaker 1: Sherry is standing by, Hi, Sherry, what's up?
Speaker 8: Hello?
Speaker 10: Well, I had a question. It was a while ago
Speaker 10: and I forgot the guy's name that was talking about
Speaker 10: all these people that are this should be punished, they
Speaker 10: should be in trouble.
Speaker 8: They should.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it was Mike Davis.
Speaker 10: Mike, Yeah, but how are we going to make it happen?
Speaker 10: I hear it all the time. I mean for years
Speaker 10: and years. Hillary Clinton can destroy her computers and oh yeah,
Speaker 10: I guess she probably wasn't guilty. You know, Hunter Biden,
Speaker 10: all those Gavin Newsommers is so awful, but they nobody
Speaker 10: ever gets in trouble.
Speaker 8: Yeah, no one.
Speaker 10: I mean we hear their name all the time, going, oh,
Speaker 10: those awful people. But that's not a punishment of any
Speaker 10: sort to make other people do the same things. I
Speaker 10: was just wondering, what can we do?
Speaker 1: Yeah, you know, the most frequent question I get almost
Speaker 1: on a daily basis for ten years, are.
Speaker 2: These people who waged.
Speaker 1: This lawless, lawfair campaign against Donald Trump and others? Are
Speaker 1: they ever going to be punished? And you know, I
Speaker 1: don't have a crystal ball. You know, I gave up
Speaker 1: reading Tea Leaves. I can't tell you the answer. I
Speaker 1: can't tell you this that in my first book called
Speaker 1: The Russia Hoax, published way back in two thousand and eighteen,
Speaker 1: So you know what is that eight years ago I
Speaker 1: laid out all of the crimes that were committed by
Speaker 1: all of the people who committed them, and I urged,
Speaker 1: you know, in every chapter, these people should be prosecuted.
Speaker 1: The next year, twenty nineteen, I wrote the sequel witch Hunt,
Speaker 1: in which I had laid out even more crimes committed
Speaker 1: by more people. And you know, unfortunately, after Jeff's sessions
Speaker 1: was canned, terrible mistake by Trump to appoint him as
Speaker 1: Attorney General.
Speaker 2: Bill Barr took over.
Speaker 1: And I had high hopes for Bill Barr, a fine attorney,
Speaker 1: and he talked a big game about all of the
Speaker 1: people who were abusing the law and weaponizing it for
Speaker 1: political purposes and you know, partisan game, but he didn't
Speaker 1: know anything about it. Bar became a huge disappointment in
Speaker 1: my mind. And then of course it was shut down
Speaker 1: by Merrick Garland and Joe Biden the moment that Biden
Speaker 1: was inaugurated, and it was shut down for four long years.
Speaker 1: Trump retook office in January of twenty twenty five, and
Speaker 1: you know, it takes a while to get the DOJ
Speaker 1: and the US attorneys up to speed, and you know,
Speaker 1: you've got to fight the deep state that are buried
Speaker 1: in these institutions all the way that are undermining any efforts.
Speaker 1: A lot of people had to be fired appropriately. So
Speaker 1: and now you finally relatedly got a grandeury impaneled that
Speaker 1: is looking into it, and I think maybe poised issue indictments.
Speaker 2: You know, justice comes.
Speaker 1: A little too late, but it's never too late, and
Speaker 1: I suppose we have to counsel patients. But it's a
Speaker 1: great point, Cherry, and thank you for bringing it up.
Speaker 1: Let's turn out to South Carolina, beautiful state.
Speaker 2: Mark joins us. Hi, Mark, how are you, hi? Greg?
Speaker 4: How you doing fine?
Speaker 9: It's a great it's a great honor to talk to you. UH,
Speaker 9: and I feel like you were one. You're the perfect
Speaker 9: man to answer my question, which I have two parts
Speaker 9: and two part questions. And the reason I feel like
Speaker 9: you're the perfect man to answer to answer this question
Speaker 9: is I'm sorry, I'm nervous.
Speaker 8: UH.
Speaker 9: Is that you were always the one and most of
Speaker 9: the time first, but that's not important. But it was
Speaker 9: always truthful information and UH your book and and everything else,
Speaker 9: you've always presented the facts of the Russia hoax. And
Speaker 9: my question comes down to this. Basically, I think the
Speaker 9: Russia hoax was used as the main reason for impeachment,
Speaker 9: and UH, impeachment is actually a trial. It is actually
Speaker 9: a trial by the Senate, and it is prosecuted. They
Speaker 9: have the prosecutors, they have everything is just like a
Speaker 9: crimin court. And my question is, since you're a trial attorney,
Speaker 9: is my question is, just like there's false prosecution and
Speaker 9: wrongful prosecution, there's got to be a way to look
Speaker 9: at it. And I think President Trump My question was
Speaker 9: this is, why doesn't President Trump pursue through the lens
Speaker 9: of wrongful prosecution and that way through civilly and criminally
Speaker 9: to That's the first part of the question, why can't
Speaker 9: that be done? The second part of the question is
Speaker 9: I believe that you know, we've all seen the movie
Speaker 9: Absence of Malice with Sally Field as a purporter and
Speaker 9: Paul Newman and Wilfred Bramley. He says basically, we can't
Speaker 9: prosecute the journalists because they are absence of malice. You know,
Speaker 9: they did not have any malice. I think it can
Speaker 9: be proven now without a shadow of doubt. There's so
Speaker 9: much malice against President Trump, whether every reporting, every thing
Speaker 9: that's done. Why not go through the lens of wrong
Speaker 9: of prosecution? Now start proving prosecution of speech a wrongful
Speaker 9: speech and incorrect speech and factual speech and okay else
Speaker 9: through the lens of uh I have malice to prove?
Speaker 1: All right?
Speaker 4: Well, you.
Speaker 1: You know, there's a lot to unpack there. I'll be
Speaker 1: I'll begin with your remark about the impeachment. It looks
Speaker 1: like a trial, but it's a political device, and the
Speaker 1: rules of evidence don't really exist. Anything comes in, including
Speaker 1: a multiple hearsay, which is only slightly absurd. I wrote
Speaker 1: a column recently about how the first impeachment against Trump
Speaker 1: was totally phony and contrived and reprehensible conduct by you know,
Speaker 1: all kinds of people in Congress, and the idea of
Speaker 1: wrongful prosecutions. I think Trump brought one all, but I
Speaker 1: think that may be one of the useful methods for accountability.
Speaker 1: I've got to take a break, otherwise I'd give you
Speaker 1: a longer explanation.
Speaker 4: Give us a call.
Speaker 2: One eight hundred nine four, one seventy three, twenty six.
Speaker 2: We'll be right.
Speaker 4: Back, Sean Hannity, more of.
Speaker 1: Your phone calls coming up. One eight hundred nine four,
Speaker 1: one seventy three twenty six. One eight hundred nine four
Speaker 1: one Sean, and John Solomon, the great editor in chief
Speaker 1: of Just the News, will be Mike asked as well,
Speaker 1: stick around