Speaker 1: Welcome America. Congratulations. You live in the greatest country on
Speaker 1: the face of the planet. We have more prosperity than
Speaker 1: we've ever had before than any other people ever. We
Speaker 1: have a lot to be grateful for. But you know what,
Speaker 1: to have that privilege and to be stewards of a republic,
Speaker 1: it requires vigilance, It requires oversight, It requires challenging the
Speaker 1: status quo. You know what, the United States of America,
Speaker 1: we're different than everybody else because guess what, we get
Speaker 1: to actually challenge. We get to actually have a first Amendment,
Speaker 1: we actually get to have a second Amendment. We actually
Speaker 1: get to challenge those in power, and that is so
Speaker 1: unique in the world. I'm Jason Chafit's filling in for
Speaker 1: Sean Hannity, thrilled to do so. We got a lot
Speaker 1: of great guests, and one of them, we're kicking this
Speaker 1: hour off with Brett Tolman. Now, Brett Tolman happens to
Speaker 1: be one of my favorite people on the planet. He's
Speaker 1: like a true cowboy, a rancher, loves his horses more
Speaker 1: than well, just about anything else. He's a hunter. He's
Speaker 1: a former US attorney for the District of Utah. He
Speaker 1: heads up right on crime. And he's just a funny,
Speaker 1: good guy who actually knows his stuff. And he worked
Speaker 1: in the Senate in judiciary, so he knows it from
Speaker 1: that angle. But being the US attorney he helped prosecute
Speaker 1: in the Elizabeth Smart case. You've heard him, probably seen him.
Speaker 1: But one of the smartest legal people out there. And
Speaker 1: thrilled to have Brett Tolman joining us on the Sean
Speaker 1: Hannity Show. Brett, welcome, Thank.
Speaker 2: You, Jason.
Speaker 3: Great to be with you.
Speaker 1: Now, you better not fail after that. If that intro,
Speaker 1: you better not say no comment or something like that.
Speaker 1: I built you up like you couldn't be any higher
Speaker 1: on the pedestal. So let's make sure we knock this
Speaker 1: one out of the park. You know, I'm a guest here,
Speaker 1: so you know I want to get invited back. So
Speaker 1: all right, we got we got to talk about, you know,
Speaker 1: Unfortunately Charlie Kirk, it's hard to believe this case continues
Speaker 1: on and on and on, as probably far too many
Speaker 1: people know. I was there when it happened. I saw it.
Speaker 1: I was looking directly at Charlie when he was assassinated.
Speaker 1: First question I have for you, because there were a
Speaker 1: couple the judges has made a couple of rulings here.
Speaker 1: One is about the fate of the death penalty, which
Speaker 1: I want to ask you about. The other one was
Speaker 1: about reprimanding the prosecutor for violating a gag order. But
Speaker 1: my first question is why in the world is this
Speaker 1: taking so long? I mean, swiftness helps both sides, right,
Speaker 1: it's why is this case taking.
Speaker 2: Foreff Well, Jason, I agree with you.
Speaker 3: I mean, this is a case in which, you know,
Speaker 3: justice prolonged is justice denied. And the longer it goes,
Speaker 3: it actually, you know, it benefits the defense because the
Speaker 3: issues arise, more time to think about potential motions, they
Speaker 3: can send their investigators out, they can they can stir
Speaker 3: issues like they've done, you know, to date. And this
Speaker 3: last one is an issue they made. The defense made
Speaker 3: some misstatements and they mischaracterize the forensic evidence surrounding the
Speaker 3: bullet and so the government, which I think made an
Speaker 3: unforced there. But the government went on you know, the
Speaker 3: media and tried to correct that. And that's that's an
Speaker 3: example of when you take too long, you're just you're
Speaker 3: just waiting to create more issues for the defense to
Speaker 3: try to capitalize on.
Speaker 4: It.
Speaker 1: So, I'm not a huge fan of gag orders. Explain
Speaker 1: to me why we even have to have a gag
Speaker 1: order and why can't the prosecutors actually work and be
Speaker 1: able to say, hey, let us clarify from our side
Speaker 1: of the view. You you are the ones that talked
Speaker 1: about it. Now, how come we don't get to talk
Speaker 1: about exactly.
Speaker 3: I'm not a fan of gag orders. I will tell
Speaker 3: you that the only time a gag order is really
Speaker 3: necessary is when you're trying to protect identities of witnesses,
Speaker 3: potential you know, cooperators, right, the safety of individuals.
Speaker 2: We don't have that in this case.
Speaker 3: We don't have that. In fact, we have one of
Speaker 3: the more renowned assassinations that's occurred in our country. We
Speaker 3: have all kinds of media that's already been you know,
Speaker 3: it exists, it's there, everybody knows what's going on.
Speaker 4: This is the case.
Speaker 3: It's an example of you don't need the gag order.
Speaker 3: Try the case, get in there, push it, you know,
Speaker 3: be be resolved to make decisions quickly. This judge, you know,
Speaker 3: historically and my experience with him, I've been in that courtroom.
Speaker 3: The decisions were not you know, they didn't take this
Speaker 3: long and there wasn't as much hand ringing, And I
Speaker 3: think it could be an example of just the overwhelming
Speaker 3: nature of the case itself and the dynamic that we
Speaker 3: now see where you have the assassination of one of
Speaker 3: the more famous peoples in this country, of really good man,
Speaker 3: a friend of mine and of yours, And so I
Speaker 3: think all of that you weigh that in the balance
Speaker 3: of a judge, and unfortunately, I think they believe that,
Speaker 3: you know, more thoughtfulness and more process might be what's
Speaker 3: needed in a high profile case, but that's not what
Speaker 3: we need.
Speaker 2: And I think cases like O. J.
Speaker 3: Simpson and others kind of prove that that's sometimes a
Speaker 3: recipe for disaster.
Speaker 1: Well, and we haven't even begun the process of jury
Speaker 1: selection and how long that's going to go on. And
Speaker 1: you know, they can argue a change of venue. You know,
Speaker 1: given that in Utah County where this uh, you know,
Speaker 1: where this assassination happened, they're going to argue that ninety
Speaker 1: nine percent of the people already know about this. But
Speaker 1: where do you see that going.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's a good question. I mean, look at the
Speaker 3: last couple motions. You had a motion to do something
Speaker 3: that's never done, and that is to actually confront one
Speaker 3: of the witnesses in the case at.
Speaker 2: The preliminary hering, and in this case.
Speaker 3: The friend or boyfriend of the defendant, and they filed
Speaker 3: a motion to do it that should have been ruled
Speaker 3: on immediately when they filed it, Like, that's never granted
Speaker 3: they can use here say it's a preliminary hearing. You
Speaker 3: don't get to confront the witness.
Speaker 2: At that stage.
Speaker 3: And yet that's an example of how you know it's
Speaker 3: been dragged out. Let's let's stop this, let's get this moving,
Speaker 3: get to jury selection, get past the venue. You you
Speaker 3: dismissed that motion almost immediately as well, because it's just
Speaker 3: as notorious in any other county in Utah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think they need to it again. It's it's
Speaker 1: solely up to the judge, right, I mean, he's got
Speaker 1: to accelerate this now. The other thing that your judge
Speaker 1: did is said that the death penalty can stay in
Speaker 1: play here. What's your take on that ruling?
Speaker 3: Yeah, it was a good decision what the defense was
Speaker 3: trying to do for your audience there, and Esen said,
Speaker 3: there's a violation of the gagoger because the prosecution went
Speaker 3: to the media. And between you and me, Jason, if
Speaker 3: you're going to go to the media, don't go to
Speaker 3: TMZ first, right, good?
Speaker 1: But yeah, I hear you.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean go to a sources that perhaps you know,
Speaker 3: Fox News would be the appropriate.
Speaker 2: One in my view, because you're just trying.
Speaker 3: To correct a record and you're not trying to do
Speaker 3: anything to jeopardize, you know, our prejudice. The case, the
Speaker 3: court found that there was a violation of the gag order,
Speaker 3: so a sanction has to be given. The defense said, well,
Speaker 3: the sanction should be we take the death penalty off
Speaker 3: the place, which is absolutely random and outrageous.
Speaker 4: You would not remove.
Speaker 3: A potential penalty based on a misconduct by the prosecution.
Speaker 3: An appropriate sanction would be, you know that particular evidence
Speaker 3: might not be visited, or there might be evidence that
Speaker 3: you allow in that you might otherwise not based on
Speaker 3: the conduct or misconduct. But for here, they're overreaching and
Speaker 3: they wanted to get rid of the death and I
Speaker 3: so the judge is very good, this is an example
Speaker 3: of what he should should do in other instances and
Speaker 3: just immediately rule on it and say no, we're not
Speaker 3: getting rid of one of the potential penalties that are
Speaker 3: involved in an assassination.
Speaker 1: Well, I just hope that they accelerate this because it
Speaker 1: is taking far too long and justice needs to be
Speaker 1: served for a variety of reasons, and they need to
Speaker 1: get on with it. All these motions they can continue
Speaker 1: in perpetuity in my opinion. All right, let's transition here, Brett,
Speaker 1: while I still have you here, I want to talk
Speaker 1: about some of these attacks on President Trump. I mean,
Speaker 1: you got these judges that are really really going after
Speaker 1: Donald Trump for all the wrong reasons. But the appellate court,
Speaker 1: the Appeals Court issued a writ of mandamus. I don't
Speaker 1: even know what that is. I should, but I don't
Speaker 1: explain to us what that is. This has to go
Speaker 1: back to Judge James Boseburg. He's a gem. Explain to
Speaker 1: us what's happening there.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, there are rare instances in which an
Speaker 3: appellate court can actually take a look at something, even
Speaker 3: if it doesn't, you know, even if it doesn't get
Speaker 3: pushed to them through a final judgment. But if they see,
Speaker 3: for example, a judge that violates an order below based
Speaker 3: on a ruling that they've made, then there are extraordinary
Speaker 3: things that can happen from an appellate court. One of
Speaker 3: those is a rid of mandamus, in which the court says,
Speaker 3: get in here, everybody will get in here on this issue,
Speaker 3: because you violated our order. It is rare, it's unusual.
Speaker 3: It's interesting to see that there's some activity. It gives,
Speaker 3: you know, there, I'm hopeful based on some of the
Speaker 3: rulings of the Supreme Court, and I'm hopeful that the
Speaker 3: message starts to get I mean, we thought that that
Speaker 3: nationwide injunctions were over based on two rulings of the
Speaker 3: Supreme Court, but we see they still try they're still
Speaker 3: trying to do those and so it's also a way
Speaker 3: to expedite getting it up to the Supreme Court for
Speaker 3: a final ruling. And then I mean, if they if
Speaker 3: they violate after that, we will be in fairly unchartered ground.
Speaker 3: And the question will be at one point, is a
Speaker 3: judge in capable of issuing, you know, or deciding on
Speaker 3: an issue, and at that moment, if they refuse to follow,
Speaker 3: that's absolutely grounds for impeachment. That's why impeachment is there,
Speaker 3: because if a judge continues to issue unconstitutional and unlawful orders,
Speaker 3: that's that's that's why we put in, you know, in
Speaker 3: the Constitution of a basis to getting rid of individuals
Speaker 3: that wouldn't follow law.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I do feel like this is this is one
Speaker 1: of those cases where they just unrelenting and what appears
Speaker 1: to be such driven political points as opposed to if
Speaker 1: you play and you look back at what Josh Holly did.
Speaker 1: I think it was yesterday and going after one of
Speaker 1: these activist judges. I don't know if you saw that clip,
Speaker 1: but he was pretty good. I think we have this
Speaker 1: cut to.
Speaker 5: What I said I did.
Speaker 6: You didn't resign from Jones Day, Senator.
Speaker 5: I did not resign from Jonesy because of any particular representation.
Speaker 6: All right, So it wasn't it wasn't a moral You
Speaker 6: had no moral.
Speaker 5: Quandaries, Absolutely not, Senator.
Speaker 4: I had no moral.
Speaker 6: Quandaries with any of the cases at Jones Day. That's
Speaker 6: your testimony, Senator.
Speaker 5: I left the firm in January of twenty twenty one
Speaker 5: because I was offered an opportunity to return to public service.
Speaker 5: It's an opportunity the firm supported and that I took.
Speaker 6: You had no quandaries with them representing in the Trump
Speaker 6: litigation you have, Senator, that's your.
Speaker 5: Testimony, Senator, I did not leave my firm because of
Speaker 5: that representation. I left my problem firm. Senator. I left
Speaker 5: the firm months later because I received an opportunity to return.
Speaker 6: No problem with that. And you have no problem representing
Speaker 6: the bondholder. So your your testimony is you're you're happy
Speaker 6: to represent anybody who comes your way. Donald Trump, you
Speaker 6: bet the bond holders, you bet hedge funds, you bet whoever.
Speaker 6: That's that's your testimony. So I'll make sure I got
Speaker 6: it right, Senator.
Speaker 5: Throughout my career, I have adhered to the code of
Speaker 5: ethics that all lawyers are bound by.
Speaker 6: Sure, but the code of ethics allow you to make
Speaker 6: money from anybody. I'm listening. You can choose your clients.
Speaker 6: I'm not accusing you of any ethical violations at all.
Speaker 4: I'm not.
Speaker 6: I'm just trying to figure out why you thought it
Speaker 6: was important to have these hedge funds as your clients,
Speaker 6: and if you had any moral quandaries. And your testimony
Speaker 6: is you didn't have any moral quandaries, which is fine,
Speaker 6: But I just wonder if that's the best judgment.
Speaker 1: What do you make of this exchange. I don't know
Speaker 1: the whole case and what she's dealing with. But I
Speaker 1: thought Holly was actually pretty good at making this point.
Speaker 3: It was very good. You know, you're getting under someone's
Speaker 3: skin when they continue every sentence they begin it with senator, Yeah, tell,
Speaker 3: isn't it?
Speaker 4: Yes?
Speaker 3: Right, it's a tell for sure? But she what what?
Speaker 2: Where they're where they're struggling is.
Speaker 3: People are vocal, and before they get into a nomination hearing,
Speaker 3: they're posting, they're telling people, and we're learning that there's
Speaker 3: extreme bias on the left, extreme bias.
Speaker 2: And what I mean by that is they look at
Speaker 2: you look at the you know, the reflection pool in
Speaker 2: front of the Lincoln Memorial.
Speaker 3: Right, any other generation, any other president that decides this
Speaker 3: thing needs to be cleaned up and made beautiful, they're
Speaker 3: going to be praised from either side. Yeah, with Trump
Speaker 3: doesn't matter. And you see then when we're nominating or
Speaker 3: getting people that are in positions or we're trying to
Speaker 3: question individuals who have been on the.
Speaker 2: Left and their.
Speaker 3: Vocal critics, it's at a depth of level and emotion
Speaker 3: that we don't necessarily experience on the right. They experience
Speaker 3: it on the left because they know that they are
Speaker 3: hanging their their ability to hold onto power is hanging
Speaker 3: in the balance on all of this, and if it's
Speaker 3: not what the American people want, and so they push,
Speaker 3: and they use hyperbole and exaggeration, and they outright lie
Speaker 3: and use deception. And then above that, Jason, the thing
Speaker 3: that is so hard for me is is this notion
Speaker 3: that violence is okay?
Speaker 1: Have Yeah, No, it's we got Brett. We could talk
Speaker 1: a lot more about this. I love that you're in
Speaker 1: the fight and understand this so well. Thank you so
Speaker 1: much for joining us with Sean Handy. Stay with us.
Speaker 4: We're going to be right back, John Hannity.
Speaker 1: All right, I want you to check this out when
Speaker 1: you have a chance. Jason in the House, Jason in
Speaker 1: the House. That's all you need to remember. You can
Speaker 1: catch me on Instagram, Facebook, h X, and you go
Speaker 1: to Jason Inthehouse dot com. You can check out all it.
Speaker 1: I've written five books, four of which are New York
Speaker 1: Times bestsellers, including The Deep State, and the one that
Speaker 1: I'm really excited about that's more recent is They're coming
Speaker 1: for you. That's what we're talking about with AI and
Speaker 1: how they're going to use these tools. We got a
Speaker 1: lot more coming up with Sean Hannity, Stay with us,
Speaker 1: We'll be right back.
Speaker 6: The one thing you can always count on, Sean Hannity
Speaker 6: is back on the radio.
Speaker 1: Well, he'll be back soon soon. If I'm Jason Chafits,
Speaker 1: I'm filling in for Sean. It's Tune twenty six. We're
Speaker 1: getting ready for fourth of July, and we got something
Speaker 1: special here with America two fifty. You're gonna love. I
Speaker 1: think our next guest here, his name is a Bradley Devlin.
Speaker 1: He's the politics editor at the Daily Signal. And if
Speaker 1: you're not following at Daily Signal, you should be a
Speaker 1: lot of good content, a lot of good stuff there.
Speaker 1: I'm going to go to this cut number one because
Speaker 1: this is going to set up what we're going to
Speaker 1: talk about with Bradley Devlin. This is sacred honor, the
Speaker 1: declaration that defies, that defines a nation. It's the trailer,
Speaker 1: and so let's go to cut one.
Speaker 7: We hold these truths to be self evident, that all
Speaker 7: men are created equal, but they are endowed by their
Speaker 7: creator with certain unalienable rights. But among these are life, liberty,
Speaker 7: and the pursuit of happiness.
Speaker 1: Sure these rights, governments are instituted among men.
Speaker 4: Deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Speaker 7: That whenever any form of government becomes destructive.
Speaker 1: Of these inns, it is the right of the people
Speaker 1: to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new.
Speaker 7: Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its
Speaker 7: powers in such form as shouted them seem most likely
Speaker 7: to affect their safety and happiness.
Speaker 1: For the support of this declaration, for the firm reliance
Speaker 1: and the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to
Speaker 1: each other our lives.
Speaker 7: Are fortunes, and our sacred honor.
Speaker 1: Bradley Devlin is, like you said, he's of politics editor
Speaker 1: at The Daily Signal and he's also a documentary filmmaker.
Speaker 1: I recognize Senator Mike Lee in there, just because he's
Speaker 1: got that distinctive voice. Bradley, we welcome to the Sean
Speaker 1: Hannity Show. Tell us what you've done, why you did it,
Speaker 1: and where people can see this.
Speaker 4: Well, Jason, it's good to be with you, and thank
Speaker 4: you to you and your team for playing the trailer. Yes,
Speaker 4: you heard Mike Lee, you heard Senator Eric Schmidt from Missouri.
Speaker 4: You had heard Representative Brandon Gill from Texas, and you'll
Speaker 4: hear a few other voices special guests when this thing
Speaker 4: premieres on July second. The reason that we did this
Speaker 4: is because America Face is a real choice. You know,
Speaker 4: there was just a Gallup poll this morning that came
Speaker 4: out that's just forty five percent of gen Zer's reporting
Speaker 4: report lacking meaning or purpose or both their lives. And
Speaker 4: they are getting to the age that the founding fathers
Speaker 4: were when they made that pledge, that solemn pledge, that
Speaker 4: pledge of their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor
Speaker 4: for their unalienable rights. Jefferson was thirty three, Madison was
Speaker 4: twenty five, Monroe is just eighteen at the time. And
Speaker 4: we made this to try to inspire people to a
Speaker 4: higher form of politics, to recover the virtues that our
Speaker 4: founders displayed through their political action, to save this country,
Speaker 4: to save the republic that they entrusted to us. Because
Speaker 4: every generation has to recommit themselves to that pledge, that
Speaker 4: pledge of their sacred honor for those rights, for life, liberty,
Speaker 4: and the pursuit of happiness, because if it goes wrong.
Speaker 4: Marx was twenty nine, Engels was twenty seven when they
Speaker 4: wrote The Communist manifesto. Fidel was thirty and Chae Guervo
Speaker 4: was twenty seven when Cuba had its revolution. So it
Speaker 4: could go one or two ways for this country in
Speaker 4: the next two hundred and fifty years. We could lose
Speaker 4: it a whole lot quicker than that.
Speaker 1: And that's why we made this well, I mean, the
Speaker 1: timing couldn't be better. It is so needed and so desperate.
Speaker 1: Let's go back to that poll, because you know, generations,
Speaker 1: they have different experiences. Like it's hard for me to believe.
Speaker 1: I'm still having a hard time like admitting it. But
Speaker 1: I have six grandkids and we got a three year
Speaker 1: old grandchild and she's just so cute, so wonderful. Well,
Speaker 1: she knows how to take that phone of her mom.
Speaker 1: She doesn't have her own phone, but she dicks her
Speaker 1: mom's phone. She can type in the four digits. She
Speaker 1: knows the four numbers, and then she hits the little
Speaker 1: green button and that's the face time and then she
Speaker 1: can see my picture and she'll hit it and I'll
Speaker 1: get a couple of times a day I'll get this
Speaker 1: sweet little grandchild will be facetiming me because she's already
Speaker 1: and she's three and so like the whole world is
Speaker 1: so different that the it's just upside. It's just different
Speaker 1: than how, you know, the rotary phones that I had
Speaker 1: when I was growing up. So but this, this pole,
Speaker 1: this gallup pole, it really is disturbing. Walk us through
Speaker 1: what this generation, these new younger generations are going through.
Speaker 4: Yeah, this is you know, I'm so glad that your
Speaker 4: grandchildren are using it to connect with their family. But
Speaker 4: most people aren't riting that technology in this way. They
Speaker 4: are using it and becoming more isolated and more insular.
Speaker 4: And as they become more isolated and more insular, they're
Speaker 4: feeling lonely. They don't feel like they're part of something higher,
Speaker 4: part of something meaningful, part of something as a collective,
Speaker 4: whether that's a community or a locality, right, your local
Speaker 4: rotary club or a church, or it's something bigger. It's
Speaker 4: the nation, right, it's this country that every generation has
Speaker 4: fought to defend. And I see these trends and how
Speaker 4: familiar they are to other episodes in history that we
Speaker 4: just talked about. Right, Marx and Angles are writing the
Speaker 4: Communist Manifesto amongst a large upheaval in Europe and the
Speaker 4: beginnings of the Industrial Revolution. How do we adjust to
Speaker 4: that major change. You can go one or two ways.
Speaker 4: We can you know, answer the call of the Enlightenment
Speaker 4: and mix that modern and ancient thinking into something like
Speaker 4: the Founding, or it can go terrible and we get
Speaker 4: something like the Russian Revolution and the Communist Manifesto a
Speaker 4: few decades before it. Or we have the communist revolutions
Speaker 4: that follow the upheaval and the destruction that was World
Speaker 4: War Two. And here we are today, Jason, in a
Speaker 4: very similar situation. We have Ai. Right, Pope Leo chose
Speaker 4: his name because he's hearkening back to the previous Pope Leo,
Speaker 4: who was in the middle of the Industrial Revolution. He says,
Speaker 4: we're going to go through something similar here with the
Speaker 4: AI Revolution, and we need to make sure that we're
Speaker 4: protecting human dignity, reminding each other what it means to
Speaker 4: be human and what it means to be human. I
Speaker 4: think is encapsulated so well in our Founding story. It's
Speaker 4: a political story. The Declaration of Independence is this culmination
Speaker 4: of one of the greatest political acts in history. It's
Speaker 4: not just principles that come out of nowhere. It is
Speaker 4: a fierce contest of ambitions and convictions and interests, and
Speaker 4: they have to navigate that as a collective and as
Speaker 4: a collective that's really operating together as the first time.
Speaker 4: They're figuring out the hierarchy in that room and Independence
Speaker 4: Hall in Philadelphia, and they're figuring out what their collective
Speaker 4: identity is based on the heritage they had received from Britain.
Speaker 4: And so here we are. We need to recover what
Speaker 4: it means to be an American, what it means to
Speaker 4: be human, even at a more fundamental level, and that's
Speaker 4: how we're going to be able to address these problems
Speaker 4: that are emerging from this technological revolution that's happening right
Speaker 4: before our eyes.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the technology itself, it can be good, right think
Speaker 1: of what it advances in medicine and the research that
Speaker 1: you can do. But it can also be bad. It
Speaker 1: can be at downright evil, and I think it's scary
Speaker 1: in many ways. I wrote an op ad a few
Speaker 1: months ago for Foxnews dot com and the op ed
Speaker 1: was basically, it's the one issue artificial intelligence that's scaring everybody,
Speaker 1: and yet each political party, no political party, has taken
Speaker 1: a definitive stance on how it fits in today's culture.
Speaker 1: And if we don't adhere and stay true to the
Speaker 1: principles in our founding documents, then shame on us because
Speaker 1: it will overwhelm us. I just posted up Jason in
Speaker 1: the house. You go to my x account, and I
Speaker 1: tweeted out Mark Theesen. He had something that came that
Speaker 1: was the research done by the Washington Post about how
Speaker 1: AI is being trained up to be very leftists, that
Speaker 1: only x AI is being trained to have more of
Speaker 1: a balance in its approach. But if you think that
Speaker 1: we're going to be relying on AI to do everything,
Speaker 1: and that they are the evil sides, that evil forces,
Speaker 1: if you will, that aren't going to do you think
Speaker 1: they're just going to sit by and let this happen. No,
Speaker 1: they're going to want to manipulate these models and redefine
Speaker 1: history and redefine who we are as a people. And
Speaker 1: that is a thing. And then you've got this whole generation,
Speaker 1: and Bradley, I want you to talk about this. You
Speaker 1: got this generation that gauges the success of their life,
Speaker 1: their worthiness based on how many likes and how many
Speaker 1: people are following them like it's a contest. And it's
Speaker 1: so destructive to a young generation into an older generation.
Speaker 4: I mean, so many great points there, Jason, And especially
Speaker 4: when it comes to getting the getting the shock, the
Speaker 4: hit of having the likes pour in or the reposts
Speaker 4: pour in. I mean, this is what it's all about.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 4: They have isolated themselves and now they've replaced real community
Speaker 4: with a fake community, a fake community that can only
Speaker 4: register its presence or its love for you in the
Speaker 4: form of likes and clicks and all of that. And
Speaker 4: AI has a very similar function. Not only is it leftist, Jason,
Speaker 4: of course we expected that. We saw it is a
Speaker 4: black George Washington. When Google first came out with his AI,
Speaker 4: everybody saw how ridiculous that was. But it's also a flatterer.
Speaker 4: And that's what's so dangerous too. We've seen this really
Speaker 4: be a cancer on the minds of so many young people,
Speaker 4: so many people in gen Z and even Jen Alfin
Speaker 4: now who have committed terrible acts against themselves, even up
Speaker 4: to suicide, because AI has ed them on. And that's
Speaker 4: what it's a flatterer. And so the first impulse that
Speaker 4: you have politically when you see a problem like that,
Speaker 4: it's going to be what's a limiting principle? And I'm
Speaker 4: not inherently against limiting principles. You want to be able
Speaker 4: to find a place where you can stake your flag
Speaker 4: in the ground and stake it deep so that it
Speaker 4: lasts for generations. But what the Founding story tells us
Speaker 4: about how to confront these problems, even for people in
Speaker 4: my age demographic, young folks around you know, twenty to
Speaker 4: thirty five, is it's not a limiting principle. It's a virtue.
Speaker 4: It's the highest virtue in politics, and that's prudence. It's judgment.
Speaker 4: It's cultivating that judgment and being a flatterer as Ai
Speaker 4: is to you telling you, no, that's perfect. Oh, do
Speaker 4: more of that? Yeah, yeah, just one more bite of
Speaker 4: that apple, mister Eve or mister Adam and missus Eve.
Speaker 4: That is what can really derail you. The Founders are
Speaker 4: not flatterers in any way, shape or form. They were strong,
Speaker 4: great men, and I think the miracle of the Founding
Speaker 4: is that there were so many great men of history
Speaker 4: in a single room. And so we need to recover
Speaker 4: that sense of who we are and develop that virtue
Speaker 4: of prudence by understanding our history and knowing our history
Speaker 4: so that we're not replacing a real community with fake communities.
Speaker 4: Whether or not that lives in a chatbot or on
Speaker 4: your favorite social media program.
Speaker 1: So what I hear you saying, and I totally one
Speaker 1: hundred percent agree. You got to get the principle's right,
Speaker 1: you know, I had when I served in Congress, we
Speaker 1: had this. I kind of teach this to young staffers Washington,
Speaker 1: DC is often run by twenty year olds, right, And
Speaker 1: I'd say, and I would drop on the board, the whiteboard,
Speaker 1: and at the top I'd write principle and then I'd
Speaker 1: put a line under it, and then I'd put policy
Speaker 1: underneath that, and it's It was a reminder visually for
Speaker 1: them and for me to just say, principle over policy.
Speaker 1: I can answer any policy quench question if you get
Speaker 1: the principle right. And I think that's the issues that
Speaker 1: people are facing today can be answered. And I maybe
Speaker 1: it's an oversimplification and somebody could help me here, but
Speaker 1: if you get the principle's right of how you want
Speaker 1: to lead your life and what you want to do.
Speaker 1: And the second part of that is at least for
Speaker 1: me personally, I believe in prayer, and I believe in
Speaker 1: Jesus Christ, and I believe in a religion and a
Speaker 1: higher being in the reality of Jesus Christ, and that
Speaker 1: prayer and that ability to communicate and to be inspired
Speaker 1: is something that drives me and that informs me, and
Speaker 1: they can keep me centered if I don't get off direct.
Speaker 4: Ugh, I mean absolutely, and just the prayer to be
Speaker 4: thankful for the existence of God in the first place,
Speaker 4: because without God, there is no principles to which we
Speaker 4: can find, and there is no objective truth. There is
Speaker 4: no enduring, eternal thing that we can point to and
Speaker 4: orient ourselves in the world. Right, And that's what that's
Speaker 4: what makes the declaration so powerful is it's this mixture
Speaker 4: of modern political philosophy and ancient political philosophy all infused
Speaker 4: with Christian teaching that tells us not only to just
Speaker 4: go to the policy, but to go to the principle.
Speaker 4: And not only did just go to principles, but go
Speaker 4: to first principles. Right, we talk about how this may
Speaker 4: build off built off of consent we the people. Well,
Speaker 4: consent is actually a second order principle from equality.
Speaker 1: That is Bradley where Bradley Devlin, congratulations, Politics editor editor
Speaker 1: at the Daily Signal, and you've got a documentary sacred
Speaker 1: honor the Declaration that defines a nation coming out. I
Speaker 1: believe you said July second, So watch for that. Thanks
Speaker 1: so much for joining us on the Sean Hannity Show.
Speaker 1: Do appreciate it. We'll be right back, Kennedy.
Speaker 3: Watch keep it an eye on breaking news and bringing
Speaker 3: it to you first.
Speaker 4: Sean Hannity.
Speaker 1: Tay, Congratulations to the United States. I think the country
Speaker 1: has been doing a heck of a job, a great
Speaker 1: job and hosting the World Cup. I think people coming
Speaker 1: all over the world watching their teams play. I think
Speaker 1: it's been exceptionally well orchestrated. The security line seem to
Speaker 1: be good, they seem to be working, and the USA
Speaker 1: team's doing really well. You're seeing a surge of patriotism
Speaker 1: that's flowing through like you've never we haven't seen in
Speaker 1: some of these other leagues and whatnot. In the next game,
Speaker 1: market July first, eight pm Eastern, that's when the US
Speaker 1: will be taking on Bosnia and Herzegovnia, and it's going
Speaker 1: to be a great game. Congratulations is the US. We'll
Speaker 1: be right back, Stay with us. MHM.