Speaker 1: Hour or two Sean Hannity Show, eight hundred and ninety
Speaker 1: four one. Shawn is on number if you want to
Speaker 1: be a part of the program. A federal judge Clinton appointee,
Speaker 1: Cameron Mcowan Curry dismissing the charges against former FBI Director
Speaker 1: James Comy and New York Attorney General Letitia James on Monday.
Speaker 1: The judge dismissing the case brought in the Northern Virginia
Speaker 1: area by Lindsay Halligan on the basis that Halligan is
Speaker 1: quote not lawfully serving as serving as the interim US
Speaker 1: attorney for the Eastern District of New Jersey. Let me
Speaker 1: go specifically to some of the cuts. And you know,
Speaker 1: one of the problems with all of the issues involving
Speaker 1: James Comy is the statute limitations have run out. And
Speaker 1: as I've been telling you, this is the low hanging fruit.
Speaker 1: And this is because the testimony he gave back in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty, so the statute limitations had not run out
Speaker 1: at the time. And he's testifying to Ted Cruz that
Speaker 1: he denied he approved the leak of classified information, of
Speaker 1: which I believe I've been convinced it seems to be
Speaker 1: a more than prima facia case against him. Here's what
Speaker 1: he said to Ted Kruz.
Speaker 2: He then asked you, quote, have you ever authorized someone
Speaker 2: else of the FBI to be an anonymous source in
Speaker 2: news reports about the Trump investigation or the Clinton administration?
Speaker 2: You responded again under oath No. Now, as you know,
Speaker 2: mister McCabe, who works for you, has publicly and repeatedly
Speaker 2: stated that he leaked information to the Wall Street Journal
Speaker 2: and that you were a directly aware of it and
Speaker 2: that you directly authorized it. Now, what mister McCabe is
Speaker 2: saying and what you testified to this committee cannot both
Speaker 2: be true. One or the other is false. Who's telling
Speaker 2: the truth.
Speaker 1: I can only speak to my testimony.
Speaker 3: I stand by what the testimony you summarized that I
Speaker 3: gave in May of twenty seventeen.
Speaker 2: So your testimony is you've never authorized anyone to leak.
Speaker 2: And mister mccab when if he says contra tray is
Speaker 2: not telling the truth?
Speaker 4: Is that correct?
Speaker 3: Again, I'm not going to characterize Andy's testimony, but mine
Speaker 3: is the same. Today, now we.
Speaker 1: Do have an update as this Clinton appointed judge in
Speaker 1: this particular case, Judge Cameron Curry dismissed the false charges
Speaker 1: charge against Comy and bank fraud charges against James without prejudice,
Speaker 1: meaning the charges could be brought again. Curry, nominated by
Speaker 1: Bill Clinton to a seat on the US District Court,
Speaker 1: was confirmed by the US Senate in nineteen ninety four.
Speaker 1: Here's a clip of that's pretty viral at this point.
Speaker 1: Twenty twenty, again testifying to Lindsey Graham, he did not
Speaker 1: recall receiving intel on Hillary Clinton's camp pushing Russian disinformation.
Speaker 5: So do you recall getting an inquiry from the CIA,
Speaker 5: excuse me, the in diligence community in September twenty sixteen
Speaker 5: about a concern that the Clinton campaign was going to
Speaker 5: create a scandal regain guarding Trump in Russia. I do not.
Speaker 5: You don't remember getting an investigatory lead from the intelligence community.
Speaker 5: September the seventh, twenty sixteen, the US intelligence officials forded
Speaker 5: an investigative referral of to FBI Director James Gummy and
Speaker 5: Direct Assistant Director of Counter Intelligence Peter Struck regarding US
Speaker 5: presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's approval of a plan concerning US
Speaker 5: presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering US elections
Speaker 5: as a means of distracting the public from her use
Speaker 5: of a private email server. You don't remember getting that
Speaker 5: or being taught that doesn't Okay, that's a pretty stunny thing.
Speaker 5: It didn't ring a bell, but it did come to you.
Speaker 1: Now, if you go back to the burned bags that
Speaker 1: were found in the at the FBI, these are bags
Speaker 1: that were supposed to be incinerated. But if you go back,
Speaker 1: there was pretty self incriminating notes and written notes of
Speaker 1: James Comy. I'm sure he thought they were long gone.
Speaker 1: In many ways, I think pretty damning that he knew
Speaker 1: almost you know, from the get go that it was
Speaker 1: this whole Clinton narrative, you know, was was garbage. Anyway,
Speaker 1: here to weigh in on this and what are the
Speaker 1: next steps in a likely appeal in this case. David Shown,
Speaker 1: former counsel for President Trump. Greg Jarrett, Fox News legal analyst,
Speaker 1: New York Times bestselling author, Greg, Start with you. You wrote
Speaker 1: a column about all of this, and it seemed that
Speaker 1: those the information in the burn bags contradict what he
Speaker 1: testified to.
Speaker 6: Oh, it absolutely does. And you know, the more that
Speaker 6: the FBI discovers evidence that was hidden away, the more
Speaker 6: incriminating it is for James Comy. But you know today's
Speaker 6: decision by the Virginia judge. I think it's the wrong decision.
Speaker 6: It will will likely be appealed to a higher court.
Speaker 6: But in the meantime, since Judge Curry dismissed the case,
Speaker 6: as you point out, Shawn, without prejudice, that means the
Speaker 6: statute of limitations, which has now expired, is told or
Speaker 6: extended for six more months, so that both Comey and
Speaker 6: James can be re indicted with the exact same charges,
Speaker 6: but with a different US attorney signing onto it. In fact,
Speaker 6: given the additional evidence discovered against Cumy, I think additional
Speaker 6: charges could be added. Look, this was entirely foreseeable that
Speaker 6: this Clinton appointed judge would rule against the Trump administration.
Speaker 6: I think Judge Curry is misinterpreting the law and the
Speaker 6: constitution and ruling that Lindsay Halligan was invalidly appointed. The
Speaker 6: president has the sole power of appointment whenever there's a vacancy,
Speaker 6: and that's what happened. Eric Sebert, who was interim appointed, expired.
Speaker 6: He was kept on by as US Attorney by a
Speaker 6: vote of the judges in the district, which the law provides,
Speaker 6: but he later departed that left of vacancy, which President
Speaker 6: Trump filled with Halligan. There is nothing in the law
Speaker 6: that forbids a president from making multiple appointments. But you know,
Speaker 6: this Democrat judge was looking for an excuse to toss
Speaker 6: the case and conjured one up. But it's a pyrrhic
Speaker 6: victory because they'll be reindicted.
Speaker 1: What are your thoughts, David chum I.
Speaker 7: Agree one hundred percent they will be re indicted. The
Speaker 7: statute Greg talks about in the eighteen USC thirty two
Speaker 7: to eighty eight allows them six months now to reindict,
Speaker 7: so the statute limitations doesn't become an issue, and if
Speaker 7: they appeal it, then sixty days from when the decision
Speaker 7: will become final. Aft the Court of Appeals to the
Speaker 7: Supreme Court has weighed in. But you know, there are
Speaker 7: many arguments that he made here, some very distinguished professor's professors.
Speaker 7: Stephen Calabresi has said this section of this statute that
Speaker 7: allows federal judge's authority in here to appoint the US
Speaker 7: attorney is unconstitutional. Another judge, Paul Castell. Former Judge Paul
Speaker 7: Castell said even if it's constitutional, that it still is
Speaker 7: not lawful for this. Uh, this statue not lawful. So
Speaker 7: there are a number of arguments to be made still,
Speaker 7: but I think they will be reindicted. I have to
Speaker 7: tell you. I mean, Lindsay Halligan showed great courage in
Speaker 7: stepping up here on short notice, uh, filling the shoes.
Speaker 7: Remember in this office, Coney had a relative working in
Speaker 7: the office when Siebert was the US attorney. That relative left.
Speaker 7: So Lindsay Halligan, you know, came into a situation that
Speaker 7: was hostile from the start. I have to be, you know,
Speaker 7: to be perfectly candid from everything in all the media
Speaker 7: reports that we've seen, the Justice Department should have given
Speaker 7: her much more support. She she did what she was
Speaker 7: asked to do, and she did it because she believed
Speaker 7: in it, and because the facts were there and the
Speaker 7: evidence is there supported. I have no question that there'll
Speaker 7: be reindictments in both cases. You might say me than
Speaker 7: you might say, why not address the things on the merits?
Speaker 7: If you're a public figure like Letitia James Racomi, wouldn't
Speaker 7: you want this aired on the merits? If you think
Speaker 7: you're right now?
Speaker 1: I would think so. Yeah. But I mean, as I
Speaker 1: pointed out many times on this program that this is
Speaker 1: the low hanging fruit. Moving on to a separate issue,
Speaker 1: separate and apart, is we have this issue of you know,
Speaker 1: six lawmakers, senators and congressman, this tape that they put
Speaker 1: out at demanding that, in fact, that the military and
Speaker 1: the CIA have a duty and an obligation to disobey
Speaker 1: the orders of the commander in chief. When confronted on
Speaker 1: this issue this weekend, Elie Slockin, Senator Michigan, said she's
Speaker 1: not aware of President Trump making any illegal orders. She
Speaker 1: made this comment on ABC. Here's what she said.
Speaker 3: So let's talk right now.
Speaker 8: Do you believe President Trump has issued any illegal orders?
Speaker 9: To my knowledge, I am not aware of things that
Speaker 9: are illegal, but certainly there are some legal gymnastics that
Speaker 9: are going on with these Caribbean strikes and everything related
Speaker 9: to Venezuela.
Speaker 1: Okay, now the president has you believes that this is
Speaker 1: seditious behavior. It's been making the rounds all over the place.
Speaker 1: Eighteen USC. Twenty three, eighty seven. We have talked about
Speaker 1: it on this program, and the idea that it's optional
Speaker 1: to obey the president's orders. She's admitting that she doesn't
Speaker 1: have a specific example. I don't know what the proper
Speaker 1: analysis of this is in terms of a legal effect.
Speaker 1: But here, if you look at the statute, it activities
Speaker 1: affecting the Armed Forces general. It makes it a federal
Speaker 1: crime to do any of the following with the intent
Speaker 1: to interfere with US military operations, advise urge or attempt
Speaker 1: to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty among
Speaker 1: members of the US military, or obstruct or attempt to
Speaker 1: obstruct recruiting, enlistment, general milleritary operations, or three distribute materials
Speaker 1: advocating any of the above. The law does not require
Speaker 1: advocating the overthrow of the government. It's specifically about undermining
Speaker 1: the functioning of the US military. Do you think that
Speaker 1: that particular code greg Jarrett, eighteen USC. Twenty three eighty
Speaker 1: seven is applicable to the senators In Congressman.
Speaker 6: Percent, it is well established that orders by the President
Speaker 6: are presumed to be lawful and must be obeyed at
Speaker 6: all times by service members. Now one can reasonably debate
Speaker 6: whether calling on those service members to disobey unlawful orders
Speaker 6: actually rises to the level of sedition, which is a
Speaker 6: very high threshold. But Sean, you're correct it does violate
Speaker 6: a very specific different law passed by Congress, which makes
Speaker 6: it a crime to undermine the loyalty in the morale
Speaker 6: or the discipline of US forces by encouraging or urging
Speaker 6: or advising them to disobey orders. Eighteen Usc. Twenty three
Speaker 6: eighty seven. What's so dishonest and diabolical about what these
Speaker 6: six members of Congress did is that their statements insinuated
Speaker 6: that Trump had issued unlawful orders, when in fact there's
Speaker 6: no evidence that he has done that. And when questioned,
Speaker 6: you played the clip, none of them has cited a
Speaker 6: single illegal order. So you know, it's like the old
Speaker 6: prosecutor who asks an innocent man, how often do you
Speaker 6: beat your wife? The question contains a false statement, so
Speaker 6: it sounds incriminating. That's what they did to Trump here
Speaker 6: in their videotape statements. They tried to pretend that he's
Speaker 6: done something unlawful when in fact he hasn't.
Speaker 7: Your take, David Shan, Yeah, I mean, I hate to
Speaker 7: be just a yes man on the show, but you
Speaker 7: and Greg are both correct. Eighteen Usc. Twenty three eighty seven.
Speaker 7: Applicable penalty is up to ten years. I think there's
Speaker 7: another statute that could apply. Eighteen USC. Thirteen eighty one
Speaker 7: makes it a crime to entice to procure someone to dessert.
Speaker 7: That's the logical conclusion here would be desertion the service
Speaker 7: member him or herself. First of all, you have an
Speaker 7: absolute duty not to obey a manifestly unlawful order. And
Speaker 7: it's no defense to say I'm just obeying orders. That's
Speaker 7: not what we have here. And so for a service
Speaker 7: member to disobey disorder all kinds of punishments. There's non
Speaker 7: judicial punishments under Article fifteen, administrative penalties so on, or
Speaker 7: there's a court martial confinement up to two years if
Speaker 7: it's a general order up to five years, if you
Speaker 7: willfully disbey a commissioned officer discharge maybe and in times
Speaker 7: of war, frankly, it's death penalty, which I think is
Speaker 7: what President Trump was referring to. The penalty is out
Speaker 7: there under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. If you
Speaker 7: disobey a superior off willfully disobey a superior off commissioned
Speaker 7: officers order in time of war, you do are subject
Speaker 7: to the death penalty.
Speaker 1: Well, that's going to be interesting to watch. By the way,
Speaker 1: Letitia James It's simple. Either she claimed on papers that
Speaker 1: it was her primary residence or she didn't. It's really
Speaker 1: that simple. Anyway. We continue now with David Shoon and
Speaker 1: Greg Jareder with us last question for you only, David,
Speaker 1: and I only have about thirty seconds for you to answer.
Speaker 1: You were Jeffrey Epstein's attorney in the final days of
Speaker 1: his life. You specifically asked him, and you've said it
Speaker 1: on this program before, whether he had anything any incriminating
Speaker 1: information on Donald Trump. He told you what he told me.
Speaker 7: He absolutely did not. And what I've said many times
Speaker 7: is you can try to interpret all of these emails
Speaker 7: and so on, and the mention of names and putting
Speaker 7: innocent people into it because their name is mentioned without
Speaker 7: any question. Jeffrey Epstein had an absolute interest, if it
Speaker 7: were true, in bringing forth any dirt he had on
Speaker 7: Donald Trump, to try to gain leverage in his face.
Speaker 7: The fact that at that point.
Speaker 1: Is, but he also hated Donald Trump because Donald Trump
Speaker 1: humiliated him by throwing him out of his club publicly
Speaker 1: and spectac acculately and loudly. Would he do that if,
Speaker 1: in fact he knew he had incriminating information on him?
Speaker 7: If he had incriminated information. He certainly would have tried
Speaker 7: to hurt him if he could, but he didn't have
Speaker 7: that information. And you know, I know people have painted
Speaker 7: a monst and so on. He was not in the
Speaker 7: business of just making up something about somebody else, and
Speaker 7: he wasn't going to do that to President Trump. And
Speaker 7: that's what it would have been required. So that to
Speaker 7: me speaks louder than anything. He had the incentive then
Speaker 7: to use it if he had it, and he didn't.
Speaker 1: All right, we appreciate both of you, Greg Jarrett and
Speaker 1: David Chan Thank you both. Eight hundred nine four one.
Speaker 1: Shawn is on number. If you want to be a
Speaker 1: part of the program, we'll get to your calls coming
Speaker 1: up here. Eight hundred nine to four one, Shawn.
Speaker 4: All right.
Speaker 1: Let us well before I get there, you know MS
Speaker 1: DNC never going to change. They're like apparently going through
Speaker 1: some name change. We're not going to change our name,
Speaker 1: MS DNC, MS Socialist DNC, I don't know whatever you
Speaker 1: want to call it. So listen to one guest says
Speaker 1: that the Trump administration is going to bring back hate speech.
Speaker 1: I want you to pay close er to mention to this.
Speaker 9: But my point is that there's been a broader effort
Speaker 9: here obviously to sort of like bring back or destigmatize
Speaker 9: I guess, hate speech and restigmatize or or stigmatize anew
Speaker 9: you know, American heroes and rainbows and other you know DEI.
Speaker 9: There's been a lot going on within this Department of
Speaker 9: Defense and DHS in this particular case, to try to
Speaker 9: basically get rid of, get rid of diversity, get rid
Speaker 9: of like any sort of recognition that there should be something,
Speaker 9: you know, that we should celebrate our difference.
Speaker 1: Yea and crum is trying to bring back hate speech.
Speaker 1: Let's stay on the same network. And a commentator uh
Speaker 1: celebrating ANTII protesters that were slashing tires, casing agents out
Speaker 1: of buildings. Is this hate speech? Listen.
Speaker 8: My MVP of the week is all of the students
Speaker 8: who walked out in Charlotte this week in protest of ICE.
Speaker 1: Rates remind us because we didn't talk about it.
Speaker 8: So Charlotte's web is basically ICE Department of Homeland Securities
Speaker 8: plan to arrest thousands of supposedly undocumented people in Charlotte.
Speaker 8: It has terrorized the city. It is shut down traffic.
Speaker 8: You have schools where thirty forty percent of the kids
Speaker 8: are not showing up. And these young people on their own,
Speaker 8: without politicians, without mom, without mom and dad, said we're
Speaker 8: standing against this. We want our country to be better.
Speaker 8: And thousands of them walk out of their schools in
Speaker 8: protests to say we don't want ICE here. In addition
Speaker 8: to the fact, and I won't say that I'm suggesting
Speaker 8: this behavior, but ICE agents have found that their tires
Speaker 8: are slashed. They have been found that they have been
Speaker 8: chased out of it. Yes, they have been chased out
Speaker 8: of buildings, chased out.
Speaker 1: Of WRESTLERUS behavior.
Speaker 8: It is dangerous behavior, but it is a demonstration that
Speaker 8: the American public, when they're not being listened to, these
Speaker 8: are the options that will take I hope this administration
Speaker 8: listens and pulls back these ICE rates.
Speaker 1: Oh you either do what we say or well, slash
Speaker 1: your tires and we'll get violent okay from the you know,
Speaker 1: the same network saying, oh, this is hate We're worried
Speaker 1: about hate speech. How about hate actions? James in Texas,
Speaker 1: God bless Texas. How are you, James? Glad you called?
Speaker 3: I'm doing all right, mister Sean. How about you.
Speaker 1: I'm hanging in there. I'm dealing with a compressed nerve
Speaker 1: in my neck from lifting. Not fun.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well, hey, I just want to let you know
Speaker 3: I've been listening to you ever since President Trump walked
Speaker 3: down or went down the escalators with his wife back
Speaker 3: on his first his first run when he won. So
Speaker 3: I guess I had a question, but now it's more
Speaker 3: of a statement. Maybe it'll be a question later. I
Speaker 3: don't know. I have so much I would love to
Speaker 3: talk to you about. But you know, we know that
Speaker 3: there's well I'm pretty sure that there's laws on the books,
Speaker 3: federal laws on the books about all the stuff that
Speaker 3: has taken place since he first ran for president. And
Speaker 3: what's really disheartening is, after all these years, not one
Speaker 3: of the people that played a role in trying to attack,
Speaker 3: trying to do things to him, the spye, the stuff
Speaker 3: that was going on, we all you know, I mean,
Speaker 3: you've talked about it over and over and over again.
Speaker 3: These people violated federal hall. They they did things way way,
Speaker 3: way way out and you know, the out of bounds.
Speaker 3: And not one of them, not one of them is
Speaker 3: going to be held or has been held accountable, None
Speaker 3: of them that have really you know, like been on
Speaker 3: TV a lot or on these liberal media stations where
Speaker 3: they talk and they talked this nonsense and just like
Speaker 3: what you got through just talking about going out and
Speaker 3: slashing tires. This is supposed to be celebrated for some reason.
Speaker 3: It drives me nuts. And then you know Friday, you
Speaker 3: were talking about, you know, our our hard working congressmen
Speaker 3: and senators phone wreckerds being you know, being spied on,
Speaker 3: you being spied on. They were all they all violated
Speaker 3: laws and not none of them are going to be
Speaker 3: held accountable. And now we got James Coney. What the charges
Speaker 3: were dropped? I'm you know, it's just.
Speaker 1: It's very well, let me just tell you. And I
Speaker 1: was very straightforward with everybody. The statute of limitations on
Speaker 1: the major issues involving call me had long since expired.
Speaker 1: The only reason I always felt and I said that
Speaker 1: this is low hanging fruit lying to Congress. As serious
Speaker 1: as that is, other people go to jail for that.
Speaker 1: And he's an FBI director, and I think, you know,
Speaker 1: those burn bags are burning HOMEI I am pretty confident
Speaker 1: that this the charges will be reinstated in both cases.
Speaker 1: But the frustrating part, and so many people ask me,
Speaker 1: how come nothing ever happens. And the answer is we've
Speaker 1: not been in power to enforce the laws of our
Speaker 1: land and you know enforce you know, our constitutional republic.
Speaker 1: I think a lot of horrible, dangerous, terrible things have happened.
Speaker 1: The only the only way this can happen is a
Speaker 1: very difficult legal maneuver, which is what FBI Director Cash
Speaker 1: Pattel discussed, has not talked about it recently, which is
Speaker 1: it has there can they be proven a grand conspiracy
Speaker 1: to undermine Donald Trump from that moment you described when
Speaker 1: he came down the escalator with his wife Milania, and
Speaker 1: what they tried to do with a dirty dossier that
Speaker 1: they knew was dirty and political in nature, and how
Speaker 1: they used it to spy on Canada Trump transition team
Speaker 1: Trump President Trump. You know, now we know about the
Speaker 1: declassification from Tulci Gabbard that they took, you know, career
Speaker 1: intelligence officials and their assessment that there was no Trump
Speaker 1: Russia collusion. And according to what we know from Tulsi
Speaker 1: Gabbard and this declassification, then they ordered a new intelligence
Speaker 1: assessment report because they didn't like what the real one said,
Speaker 1: and that one came to a very different conclusion. Then
Speaker 1: you have Hunter Biden laptop. They had verified its authenticity
Speaker 1: March at twenty twenty. They go through the whole summer,
Speaker 1: meeting weekly with big Tech to prebunk what they knew
Speaker 1: to be very very true. Are they putting center blocks
Speaker 1: on the scale of an election? Did they weaponize our
Speaker 1: justice system as a means of ever making ever allowing
Speaker 1: Donald Trump even an opportunity to become the president of
Speaker 1: our country? And they did everything humanly possible in terms
Speaker 1: of the use of law, fair and the weaponization of
Speaker 1: justice to destroy this man, and in spite of all
Speaker 1: of those attempts, he was still elected. It's a very
Speaker 1: dangerous time for a constitutional republic when all of this
Speaker 1: happens and people don't get held accountable. You know, look
Speaker 1: at Arctic Frost, look at all these senators, and you know,
Speaker 1: all these conservative groups and Jim Jordan and all these
Speaker 1: other people you know that are being flat out spied
Speaker 1: on just because they support Donald Trump. You know, I've
Speaker 1: not complained, you know, outwardly that much about all the
Speaker 1: stuff they did to me, but it's it's not been
Speaker 1: exactly pleasant. But you know, does anyone really want to
Speaker 1: hear me whine? I don't want to hear me whine
Speaker 1: ungrateful that that. You know, I chose this life. I
Speaker 1: chose this career to be a public figure. I get it. However,
Speaker 1: I never thought my private personal text messages that they
Speaker 1: never got from me would ever be released to the public.
Speaker 1: And we're talking about thousands of messages. I kind of
Speaker 1: view that as an invasion of privacy, don't you absolutely?
Speaker 3: Absolutely? I mean you were absolutely. That's what That's what's
Speaker 3: so frustrating.
Speaker 1: There are two things that I'm going to warn you about.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's it's Thanksgiving week. Everybody's on vacation this week.
Speaker 1: You know, I'm spending most of my spare time trying
Speaker 1: to get this next straightened out. It's been impacting my
Speaker 1: life for a month. And I will tell you that
Speaker 1: we're going to hit the We're going to hit the
Speaker 1: ground running in January. It's going to be the most
Speaker 1: important mid terms of our lifetime, and it's going to
Speaker 1: take all hands on debn Otherwise it's going to be
Speaker 1: two years of never ending lawfare, weaponization, investigation, impeachment, and
Speaker 1: the Trump agenda will be stopped in its tracks. And
Speaker 1: then when we get through that election, then I'm going
Speaker 1: to do my own vetting like I did in twenty
Speaker 1: fifteen and sixteen, and I will I will give my
Speaker 1: best recommendation who I think is the best person who
Speaker 1: carry on the mantle of President Trump. And I'm sure
Speaker 1: people will spend years probably criticizing me. That happened the
Speaker 1: last time when I supported Trump ahead of most other people.
Speaker 1: That's a preview of coming attractions. Linda, how right am
Speaker 1: I on that prediction? I'd say you're pretty spottling on that. Yeah,
Speaker 1: Linda doesn't say she doesn't say many complimentary things, so
Speaker 1: that's a good thing. Hey, that's not true. Easy, it easy.
Speaker 1: What are you doing?
Speaker 4: Listen?
Speaker 10: If you were looking for a cupcake producer, you definitely
Speaker 10: the wrong show.
Speaker 1: Well you were a cupcake for for the first five years.
Speaker 1: Did you think you talked? I was just quiet. It's different. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I can't. I can't even imagine that person, James, Thank you,
Speaker 1: buddy Mac in New Orleans. Mac, how are you glad
Speaker 1: you called?
Speaker 4: Wonderful? Thank you for taking ma call. How are you today?
Speaker 4: And I hope everything is great there where you are
Speaker 4: in sunny South Florida?
Speaker 1: It's good. What's going on with you?
Speaker 4: My friend, Well, every day is Saturday. But I'd like
Speaker 4: to point something out. These wonderful patriotic politicos who have
Speaker 4: been in federal civil service, who've been in the military
Speaker 4: and stuff. Great for their service, grateful for that. However,
Speaker 4: where was all they're upset when the Obama administration was
Speaker 4: droning US citizens? Where was their upset whenever the Biden
Speaker 4: White House was creating malicious prosecution against you know, President Trump.
Speaker 4: Where was their upset when members of the staff, members
Speaker 4: of the administration were prosecuted for bs Where was.
Speaker 1: The I mean, why, why don't you answer your own question?
Speaker 1: Because you're you're very smart. What's the answer to the question?
Speaker 4: Oh? I understand that, But that's my point. Where's the
Speaker 4: where's the the upset with the wrongdoing? There's no wrongdoing
Speaker 4: set forth in the in the in these people that
Speaker 4: are pointing out what they want done supposedly.
Speaker 1: Well said, and and here's the thing, what they what
Speaker 1: they've done here is dangerous. What they've done here is
Speaker 1: extraordinarily dangerous. The question is does it does it cross
Speaker 1: the threshold into law breaking? And will they help be
Speaker 1: held accountable? That's the question.
Speaker 4: Uh.
Speaker 1: I don't like to give false. Hope, I hope, I
Speaker 1: hope they are Mac. We love New Orleans, We love you,
Speaker 1: Thank you have a great Thanksgiving All right, quick break
Speaker 1: right back to our phones eight hundred and nine four one,
Speaker 1: Shawn our number as we continue.
Speaker 4: The final hour roundup is next. You do not want
Speaker 4: to miss it, and stay tuned for the final hour
Speaker 4: free for all on the Sean Hannity Show.
Speaker 1: At back our busy phones eight hundred nine four one, Shawn.
Speaker 1: If you want to be a part of the program,
Speaker 1: Steph in California.
Speaker 10: High Hi, Sean. I've been a listener for many years
Speaker 10: and I appreciate how much I learn every time I listen.
Speaker 10: I wanted to bring to light just the tactics that
Speaker 10: they use, and it was used in that when those
Speaker 10: senators made that video plug and also in just the
Speaker 10: last clip you played. And what they tend to do
Speaker 10: is they they usually make some statements that are very
Speaker 10: muddy and then they get to what they want you
Speaker 10: to do, which, of course, in the case of those senators,
Speaker 10: it was to defy the orders. And here's how they
Speaker 10: do it. I'll just bring that as the example. Their
Speaker 10: first statement, they said that this administration was pitting the
Speaker 10: military against citizens. And then they go on with another
Speaker 10: statement that says, here goes more fear, another false claim,
Speaker 10: threats to the constitution are now here at home, was
Speaker 10: coming from within, And then they went on with you
Speaker 10: can refuse, and then of course you must refuse the orders,
Speaker 10: and your last clip with them talking about the same
Speaker 10: type of thing with the with the ice. They just
Speaker 10: did the same exact thing. And this is this is
Speaker 10: right out of the Marxist playbook. They make you fearful.
Speaker 10: They make statements that are are muddy or untrue, but palatable,
Speaker 10: and of course to the cult on the left, these
Speaker 10: statements are very palatable, and they believe them wholeheartedly, that
Speaker 10: this administration is a threat to the constitution, that they're
Speaker 10: pitting the military against poor innocent citizens, and that everyone
Speaker 10: must just get up and fight, and you know, and say.
Speaker 1: They are they are pushing our military to violate their
Speaker 1: oath and the Constitution by what they're doing, and I
Speaker 1: should I believe they should all be held accountable. And
Speaker 1: for Slotgun to admit there's no justification that she can
Speaker 1: think of makes it more reckless. Well said Steph, I'm
Speaker 1: just running out of time. I'm up on the Clock
Speaker 1: I do appreciate your call