Speaker 1: All right, glad you with us. We are expecting it
Speaker 1: should be happening any minute now. A decision on the
Speaker 1: issue of charges in the shooting in Atlanta Rayshard Brooks case.
Speaker 1: We'll go to that when that announcement takes place. Man,
Speaker 1: I tell you this. I talking to a friend of
Speaker 1: mine today and it's like, um, this year has been rough.
Speaker 1: It's been rough on everybody. The worst pandemic YEP since
Speaker 1: nineteen seventeen and nineteen eighteen. I never you know then
Speaker 1: we had to all in horror the country watch what
Speaker 1: happened to George Floyd can't happen. President laid out his
Speaker 1: reforms as we told you yesterday. You know the amazing
Speaker 1: thing about that is, you know, those are all things
Speaker 1: that Joe Biden and Barack Obama could have done. They
Speaker 1: did nothing. They didn't do any of these changes. Now
Speaker 1: everyone's telling President Trump what to do and how he
Speaker 1: needs to do it. Did they forget Cambridge and Baltimore
Speaker 1: and Ferguson Missouri? Because it seems like they all did
Speaker 1: forget it all. There's a rasp muse and poll that
Speaker 1: should make every American pause and be sad. Frankly, that
Speaker 1: was released yesterday, thirty four percent of likely US voters
Speaker 1: think that the US will experience a second civil war
Speaker 1: sometime in the next five years, and that includes on
Speaker 1: nine percent of say it's very likely we are the
Speaker 1: United States of America. Do we want to remain the
Speaker 1: United States of America? Because I do believe it's the
Speaker 1: greatest country God ever gave man. You know, we have
Speaker 1: the ability to right wrongs, correct injustices. Why I wrote
Speaker 1: my book Live Free or Die, with the history of
Speaker 1: why we become the greatest wealth producing nation on the
Speaker 1: face of the earth, and what is at stake when
Speaker 1: you compare the Democrats twenty twenty Agenda, New Green Deal madness,
Speaker 1: everything's free madness, everything's government run madness, get rid of
Speaker 1: and eliminate all the you know, the lifeblood the economy,
Speaker 1: oil and gas and coal gone forever. Okay, they're nuts
Speaker 1: versus capitalism and liberty and risk and reward and ingenuity
Speaker 1: of the American mind. You know. Put it in this context.
Speaker 1: I said from the very beginning of the COVID breakout
Speaker 1: that I have a lot of faith in our medical
Speaker 1: scientists and researchers and medical professionals, and every indication is
Speaker 1: and there was an article about this today. We'll get
Speaker 1: an update actually on this today from doctor Oz. Bill
Speaker 1: O'Reilly also joins us today. I mean the ability to
Speaker 1: break down the sequence of coronavirus never happened this fast.
Speaker 1: They did it weeks like six weeks, and now there
Speaker 1: are that they believe it the latest that they might
Speaker 1: be able to. Now Operation warp speed is what it's
Speaker 1: called to deliver three hundred million doses of a vaccine
Speaker 1: for any American that wants one. By the way, testing
Speaker 1: I can tell you you can go anywhere and get
Speaker 1: a test. In New York and pretty much every place
Speaker 1: I've gone too, there's no line ever, you know, maybe
Speaker 1: have to wait ten minutes. That's it. You go in,
Speaker 1: you actually register yourself, You put in your insurance information
Speaker 1: blah blah blah, and you know email address or phone number,
Speaker 1: they send you over your results, text back to you whatever.
Speaker 1: But anyway, the officials now saying that fourteen promising candidates
Speaker 1: for a vaccine. Originally it was one hundred. They've no
Speaker 1: sort of weeded it down to the fourteen best already
Speaker 1: in clinical trials, and they're gonna now get it further
Speaker 1: down to about the seven most promising candidates. All successful
Speaker 1: vaccines will be approved by the FDA, and I'm hearing
Speaker 1: it might even be sooner than January when that number
Speaker 1: is available. That's American ingenuity. That's what freedom gives you.
Speaker 1: We have, Comrade the Blasio, I mean, I can't understand this.
Speaker 1: Now there's a pushback about the president and the rally,
Speaker 1: and every Democrat criticized, and the president he's having a
Speaker 1: rally in Oklahoma. You know they're gonna have temperature checks everybody.
Speaker 1: If you want to go to the rally, we'll have
Speaker 1: to wear a mask and still nearly a million people,
Speaker 1: and you have to sign a waiver that you understand
Speaker 1: that there is a risk. It's been some resurgence in
Speaker 1: about nineteen states. We'll talk to doctor Oz about it.
Speaker 1: I go through anecdotally what I always say as well,
Speaker 1: every store I went to, my grocery store, in particular,
Speaker 1: my rite Aid, my pharmacy, they never closed, They never
Speaker 1: shut down. The medical professionals, those making all the ppe
Speaker 1: equipment in the world, they kept working. They never shut down.
Speaker 1: They kept New York and all of these states, New
Speaker 1: Jersey and Pennsylvania, every state that was struggling alive and fed,
Speaker 1: and farmers and packers and drivers, truck drivers, and the
Speaker 1: kids that stock the shelves, and the cashiers that would
Speaker 1: check you out. I like the fast one to do
Speaker 1: it myself. I just do it faster, and I don't
Speaker 1: mind packing my own bags. I prefer to do it anyway.
Speaker 1: It's all good. And then you got the hypocrisy. There's
Speaker 1: been no talk of COVID during all of these protests.
Speaker 1: Many peaceful people, but unfortunately the anarchists are there. The
Speaker 1: troublemakers are there, the rioters. They go out and riot
Speaker 1: and looting and arson, and eight hundred cops hurt, bottles, bricks, rocks,
Speaker 1: molotov cocktails. Number dead, eight hundred injured, one guy in
Speaker 1: Vegas now paralyzed. But all of a sudden, now Trump
Speaker 1: is having a rally. Now we're going to talk about COVID.
Speaker 1: I guess the simple answer is is just to say
Speaker 1: that it's not a rally, it's a protest. Then they
Speaker 1: should have no problem with the president going to Oklahoma
Speaker 1: on Saturday. Comrade de Blasio's out there every day. Sometimes
Speaker 1: he'd got caught without his mask on, you know, driving
Speaker 1: to places he need not even drive, just to take
Speaker 1: little walks and going late into this whole thing with
Speaker 1: going to his gym, and he says that it's inappropriate
Speaker 1: for kids to use playgrounds and reminds the virus fight.
Speaker 1: This is the guy that's let anarch even rule the
Speaker 1: streets in New York every night. Nobody listens to him
Speaker 1: ever on his curfew. I mean, it's madness all over
Speaker 1: the place, and him and Cuomo, they're still fighting each other.
Speaker 1: You can't even make it up. What's going on in
Speaker 1: the city of the state of New York. Now, there's
Speaker 1: been a lot of talk about, well, what should the
Speaker 1: president do as it relates to I guess they've negotiated
Speaker 1: it down that they're gonna only put up concrete barriers
Speaker 1: instead of the walls that I thought were bad walls.
Speaker 1: Apparently it's okay to build walls if you're in the
Speaker 1: autonomous free love Zone chops or chatz or whatever you're
Speaker 1: calling it at any given moment, or you know, the
Speaker 1: spaghetti pot luck zone. Funniest thing I ran on TV
Speaker 1: last night is yea fake news CNN. Their reporters are
Speaker 1: calling it. It's like a street festival and the people
Speaker 1: there here. The reporters say it's not a street festival,
Speaker 1: correcting them right in the air, the people that are
Speaker 1: in the autonomy zone, the free love zone. Then you
Speaker 1: have the same thing with conspiracy tv MSDNC. They say
Speaker 1: the same stupid thing, they get corrected live on television. No,
Speaker 1: it's not this is a festival. And so now we
Speaker 1: have you know, it seems like the mayor's just aiding
Speaker 1: and abetting. How long is it gonna go on? Well,
Speaker 1: it could be the summer of love. Well, there are
Speaker 1: residents that live in there, there are businesses in there,
Speaker 1: and they're doing nothing to help restore law and order,
Speaker 1: and they're enabling and helping the anarchists take over city blocks,
Speaker 1: and they're doing it basically with the seal of approval
Speaker 1: of the governor and of the mayor. Well, then that
Speaker 1: raises the question. The President every day has been going
Speaker 1: out saying I am ready at a moment's notice to
Speaker 1: give you the help you need to restore order. Now
Speaker 1: my advice is, well, the people of Washington State, you
Speaker 1: voted for this, just like the people in New York.
Speaker 1: I look, I didn't vote for democratic rule all these years.
Speaker 1: I live here because of my job. I'm hoping to
Speaker 1: move one day soon and get out of here. Stop paying,
Speaker 1: you know, the massive amount of taxes. And I don't
Speaker 1: even think the Governor of New York, based on previous
Speaker 1: comments he's made about conservatives, basically said you're not a
Speaker 1: New Yorker. Okay, I'll take him at his word. I
Speaker 1: can live in a place with better weather, lower taxes,
Speaker 1: cheaper housing. And I think having spoken with my staff
Speaker 1: and radio and TV, they all love the idea. We've
Speaker 1: all learned teleworking works not that hard. So and I
Speaker 1: think that's all gonna be a game changer. So but
Speaker 1: the president, now, okay, he's offering help. They're supposed to
Speaker 1: ask him for the help. He's begging them, and he's
Speaker 1: offering the help. Illinois. Same thing, all the violence in Chicago.
Speaker 1: Nobody's fixed over the years, you know, keep saying I'm
Speaker 1: here to help whatever you need. Tell me what you need.
Speaker 1: Just like during Corona, he built hospitals, he manned the hospitals,
Speaker 1: he sent all the ventilators, all the ppe. I've given
Speaker 1: you a little laundry list. We have good news on
Speaker 1: the economy. I love the news yesterday. Perhaps that what
Speaker 1: we've been talking about, what we wanted was the v
Speaker 1: shape recovery. I'm seeing numbers that are really blowing me away.
Speaker 1: Retail sales month of May. I didn't think we'd see
Speaker 1: this kind of number any I didn't even know it
Speaker 1: would be this large till maybe August, after we got
Speaker 1: the July numbers, hoping that by then everything would be
Speaker 1: open up. And you know, it's very slow still. In
Speaker 1: a lot of states. They're gonna be hot spots. It's
Speaker 1: not if it's when they're happening. We're dealing with them better.
Speaker 1: We're going to have you know, there's going to be
Speaker 1: little waves. We're dealing with them better. We're learning if
Speaker 1: you protect the most vulnerable and the elderly. Is a
Speaker 1: new study out of Great Britain as it relates to
Speaker 1: what is a steroid? Not your typical story more in
Speaker 1: the line, I guess pregnic Zone. It's not pregnic Zonne though,
Speaker 1: but he'll tell us all about it. That once you're
Speaker 1: in a state of respiratory unrest because of COVID nineteen,
Speaker 1: that you know they're saving a third more lives. So
Speaker 1: we're coming up which better treatments. They think they have,
Speaker 1: the vaccine, All these things are going to happen. Great
Speaker 1: news in terms of the jobs that were created, two
Speaker 1: and a half million. They thought projected we lose what
Speaker 1: nine million, They're only off by eleven and a half
Speaker 1: million in their projections. Just like all the models and
Speaker 1: projections how many would get coronavirus. It does bring into
Speaker 1: a fine focus the president's instincts on quarantines and the
Speaker 1: travel band ten days after the first known case. Anyway,
Speaker 1: when you get retail sales month of May rising nearly
Speaker 1: eighteen percent, Wow, that's amazing. Two and a half million
Speaker 1: jobs created in May, that's amazing. That is great for
Speaker 1: everybody in this country. So in one hundred and thirty
Speaker 1: nine days, this will all factor in, you know. And
Speaker 1: then I watched Joe, and I watched Barack, and I
Speaker 1: watch all the Democrats, and all they do is hate Trump,
Speaker 1: as they've always done. And you know, they all had
Speaker 1: an opportunity. You know what you know, Look, Ferguson happened
Speaker 1: under the watch of Barack and Joe. What did they do? Nothing?
Speaker 1: It's Cambridge nothing, other incidents nothing, they did nothing. What
Speaker 1: did they do to improve police community relations? Nothing? I mean,
Speaker 1: Chicago was in the news a lot in the eight
Speaker 1: years that Barack and Joe or the leaders of government,
Speaker 1: they barely mentioned it. You know, did they improve relations
Speaker 1: after the riots and Ferguson or Baltimore, Maryland, any of
Speaker 1: these They didn't do anything. They rushed to judgment, and
Speaker 1: they often villified the police, which, by the way, has
Speaker 1: to stop. What's happening in this this widespread, unending, unfair
Speaker 1: vilification of police officers. That's not gonna end. Well, already
Speaker 1: eight hundred, they're injured, some are dead, and some will
Speaker 1: be paralyzed for the rest of their lives. You can't
Speaker 1: do you can't demonize a group of people because of
Speaker 1: the actions of a few. And I'm consistent in this
Speaker 1: point of view. I said it about the FBI and
Speaker 1: the deep state. Most people that are cops, they don't
Speaker 1: get paid a lot. It's a hard, hard job. It's
Speaker 1: a risky job. You're putting your life on your line
Speaker 1: on the line. And what happens, by the way, when
Speaker 1: you need the help, what are you gonna call. You're
Speaker 1: gonna you're gonna call the autonomous zone of Summer of
Speaker 1: Love street festival, carnival like atmosphere protesters to come help here.
Speaker 1: That's not gonna work. You know, we need the police now.
Speaker 1: I like the improvements we're making. Joe and Rock did
Speaker 1: nothing to make those changes. They had the same issues
Speaker 1: when they were in office. You know, over four thousand
Speaker 1: people killed in Chicago alone. What did they do there? Nothing?
Speaker 1: Tens of thousands of others shot nothing. This is a
Speaker 1: peaceful zone. This is part of the deep seated protests
Speaker 1: and rage around police brutality sent to which it has
Speaker 1: been peaceful since Monday, after more than a week of
Speaker 1: classes between the demonstrators and the police. Now you've seen
Speaker 1: essentially almost like a street festival type atmosphere, street festival
Speaker 1: type festbappes, you know, with a very festival with a
Speaker 1: very intentional purpose. It is not a street festival. It
Speaker 1: is not a street festival. Do not say that. Shame
Speaker 1: on you for saying that what you're seeing in front
Speaker 1: of me is a peaceful situation. In fact, it sort
Speaker 1: of looks like a street festival. Is this an area
Speaker 1: that has been I mean, the president makes it sound
Speaker 1: like this is an area that has been taken over
Speaker 1: and is being ruled by you know, somebody, and you
Speaker 1: know it is being ruled by by you know, by
Speaker 1: I don't know how we would describe them, everybody, everybody.
Speaker 1: How long do you think Seattle and those few blocks
Speaker 1: looks like this? I don't know. We could have a
Speaker 1: summer of love. Tell that to the police who was
Speaker 1: supposed to be in that precinct though. But I understand
Speaker 1: your sentiment, Mayor. We don't have to sacrifice public safety
Speaker 1: for First Amendment rights. Both can exist, and we'll make
Speaker 1: sure that both exists in Seattle. This is in public safety.
Speaker 1: This is the taking over of your city. I mean, unbelievable.
Speaker 1: I guess yesterday, I guess it was the mayor of Olympia, Washington.
Speaker 1: It wasn't her talking about her house and how frightening
Speaker 1: it is. Look, I'm just going to tell you something.
Speaker 1: They're aiding and abetting this. Now. I think there's a trap. Now.
Speaker 1: Constitutionally we have been over the Insurrection Act eighteen o seven.
Speaker 1: Now does the Insurrection Act give the president the authority
Speaker 1: to send military troops or guardsmen? You know, you could
Speaker 1: even send in other law enforcement agents. He's the problem
Speaker 1: is Washington State doesn't want it, Nor does this nutty
Speaker 1: mayor want it. Neither does Chicago want it. Neither does
Speaker 1: Comrade de Blasio or Governor Cuomo want it now. If
Speaker 1: it gets to a point where the President has to
Speaker 1: act as all of the constitutional authority to do so.
Speaker 1: If a city or state refuses to take actions that
Speaker 1: are necessary to defend the life and property of their residence,
Speaker 1: then he said, I will deploy the US military and
Speaker 1: solve the problem for them. He doesn't want to do that.
Speaker 1: He has the ability to do that. The Attorney General
Speaker 1: acknowledges that he has the ability to do that. It
Speaker 1: can be invoked. If there's insurrection against state law and
Speaker 1: a state government requires federal assistance to restore order, he
Speaker 1: can do all of that. It can be invoked. Now,
Speaker 1: let's all hope and pray that moment never comes, because
Speaker 1: when it comes, we'll know when the moment is all right,
Speaker 1: the case of Raychard Brooks in Atlanta we have. Now
Speaker 1: we're gonna go to Paul Howard, the Fulton County, Georgia
Speaker 1: DA announcing the charges. Before we started today, I wanted
Speaker 1: to acknowledge missus Miller, who is the husband of Rashard Brooks.
Speaker 1: She is here today with her attorney, and after we
Speaker 1: make our presentation, she is going to make some remarks
Speaker 1: or mister Stewart. We also have with us today three
Speaker 1: witnesses from West Memphis, Tennessee, and they are here with
Speaker 1: their lawyer, Sean Williams, and we are also going to
Speaker 1: ask mister Williams to address you as well. So we
Speaker 1: have decided to issue warrants in this case to day.
Speaker 1: I have with me copies of the warrants and after
Speaker 1: my presentation, we will let you know how you can
Speaker 1: get copies of the warrants to date. So the question
Speaker 1: is asked, why were we able to charge this case now?
Speaker 1: So I want to explain that we have already had
Speaker 1: an opportunity to speak with three of the witnesses in
Speaker 1: this case, and those are the three witnesses who were
Speaker 1: from West Memphis, Tennessee. We have had an opportunity to
Speaker 1: conduct interviews with seven other witnesses other than the three
Speaker 1: witnesses from Tennessee. We've also had an opportunity to view
Speaker 1: let's see if you can turn it on? Gets ye?
Speaker 1: So Tracy, that's fine. So we have had an opportunity
Speaker 1: to review eight video tapes to Atlanta body cam tapes
Speaker 1: to Atlanta police. We have also had an opportunity to
Speaker 1: review a windy surveillance tape. We have also viewed three
Speaker 1: citizens cell phone videos. With many of the videos, we
Speaker 1: had the opportunity to enhance the videos so that we
Speaker 1: could get a better look. The other thing that we
Speaker 1: have had an opportunity to do is to view some
Speaker 1: of the physical evidence. The Chevrolet Trailblazer was a vehicle
Speaker 1: that was in the line at Wendy's on the night
Speaker 1: of this incident and it received a shot from Officer
Speaker 1: Roth's gun. We've had an opportunity, along with the GBI
Speaker 1: now to view that trailblazer. My office has had an
Speaker 1: opportunity to inspect the crime scene. We have conducted a
Speaker 1: canvas of the area. We started our investigation at about
Speaker 1: one fifteen am on Saturday morning, and we have been
Speaker 1: working on this case around the clock since that time.
Speaker 1: Because of the next line, we have spent some time
Speaker 1: examining the taser evidence in this case. We've actually examined
Speaker 1: and possessed the two tasers that were used. We have
Speaker 1: also had an opportunity to examine the taser logs that
Speaker 1: are prepared as the tasers are used, and we have
Speaker 1: also consulted with a taser expert from the company that
Speaker 1: manufactures the tasers. We received a preliminary medical autopsy, we've
Speaker 1: received a preliminary ballistics report, and in reaching our conclusions today,
Speaker 1: we have worked with both the Georgia Bureau of Investigation
Speaker 1: as well as the Atlanta Police Department. This will be
Speaker 1: the fourth time that we have asked that arrest warrants
Speaker 1: or issued in a case before an indictment. This list
Speaker 1: the other three cases that we were involved with where
Speaker 1: an a rest warrant was issued prior to indictment. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: this marks the fortieth prosecution of police officers from misconduct
Speaker 1: here in our county, and this is the ninth time
Speaker 1: that we've prosecuted a homicide case committed by a police officer.
Speaker 1: Eight of those cases involved black males, and one of
Speaker 1: those cases involved a black female. So in reaching our decision,
Speaker 1: there were some considerations that we considered important and one
Speaker 1: of the things that we noted from our evaluation was
Speaker 1: that mister Brooks on the night of this incident was calm,
Speaker 1: He was cordial and really displayed a cooper prative nature. Secondly,
Speaker 1: even though mister Brooks was slightly impaired, his demeanor during
Speaker 1: this incident was almost jovial. Also, we noted that he
Speaker 1: received many instructions from the Atlanta officers and he was
Speaker 1: asked many questions. Some of the questions he was asked repeatedly,
Speaker 1: but for forty one minutes in seventeen seconds, he followed
Speaker 1: every instruction, he answered the questions. The fourth thing we
Speaker 1: noted is that mister Brooks was never informed that he
Speaker 1: was under arrest for driving under the influence, and this
Speaker 1: is a requirement of the Atlanta Police Department. When one
Speaker 1: is charged with the DUI. The Atlanta Police Department's own
Speaker 1: procedures required that that person is informed immediately that they
Speaker 1: are under arrest. And then he was and then he
Speaker 1: was grabbed from the rear by Officer Roth, who made
Speaker 1: an attempt to physically restrain him. After the forty one
Speaker 1: minute and seventeen second discussion, we concluded and considered it
Speaker 1: as one of our important considerations that mister Brooks never
Speaker 1: presented himself as a threat. At the very beginning, he
Speaker 1: was peacefully sleeping in his car. After he was awakened
Speaker 1: by the officer, he was cooperative and he was directed
Speaker 1: to move his car to another location. He calmly moved
Speaker 1: his car. Mister Brooks was asked whether or not he
Speaker 1: had a weapon, He indicated that he did not. Without
Speaker 1: any resistance. He passed his driver's license to the officers,
Speaker 1: and the officers then asked mister Brooks whether or not
Speaker 1: he would consent to a pat down a body search,
Speaker 1: and mister Brooks allowed them to search him, and the
Speaker 1: search yielded no weapon. We found that it was of
Speaker 1: interest that when the officers patted mister Brooks down they
Speaker 1: noticed there was a bulge in his pants. They did
Speaker 1: not pull that item out of his pocket. They took
Speaker 1: mister Brookes's word that that bulge represented a number of
Speaker 1: dollar bills. But mister Brooks never displayed any aggressive behavior
Speaker 1: during the seventy forty one minutes in seventeen seconds. Now,
Speaker 1: this is another important consideration that we discovered as we
Speaker 1: evaluated this case. Once mister Brooks was shot, there is
Speaker 1: in Atlanta policy that requires that the officers have to
Speaker 1: provide timely medical attention to mister Brooks already anyone who
Speaker 1: is injured. But after mister Brooks was shot, for some
Speaker 1: period of two minutes and twelve seconds, there was no
Speaker 1: medical attention applied to mister Brooks. But when we examined
Speaker 1: the video tape and in our discussions with witnesses, what
Speaker 1: we discovered is during the two minutes and twelve seconds
Speaker 1: that Officer Roff actually kicked mister Brooks while he laid
Speaker 1: on the ground while he was there fighting for his life. Secondly,
Speaker 1: from the videotape, we were able to see that the
Speaker 1: other officer, Officer Broslan, actually stood on mister Brooks's shoulders
Speaker 1: while he was there struggling for his life. We were
Speaker 1: able to conclude that, based on the way that these
Speaker 1: officers conducted themselves while mister Brooks was lying there, that
Speaker 1: the demeanor of the officers immediately after the shooting did
Speaker 1: not reflect any fear or danger of mister Brooks, but
Speaker 1: their actions really reflected other kinds of emotions. So as
Speaker 1: we are drawing our legal conclusion in this case, we
Speaker 1: were led by the two foundational cases in this matter,
Speaker 1: one being Tennessee versus Garner, and what that case points
Speaker 1: out is when an officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect,
Speaker 1: that the officer may not use force to prevent escape
Speaker 1: unless the officer has probable cause to believe that the
Speaker 1: suspect poses an immediate threat of death or of serious
Speaker 1: physical injury to that officer. The next foundational case that
Speaker 1: we use in our analysis is Graham versus Connor, which
Speaker 1: says that this test is based upon that of a
Speaker 1: reasonable officer on the scene and not the individual officer,
Speaker 1: but a reasonable officer on the scene. We've concluded at
Speaker 1: the time mister Brooks was shot that he did not
Speaker 1: pose an immediate threat of death, our serious physical injury
Speaker 1: to the officer, our officers. If you would get the photograph,
Speaker 1: the thetation, that's good here, all right, par stations along
Speaker 1: the Sean Hannity Show Network, We're gonna stay with our
Speaker 1: coverage here. And if you're listening uh to specifically the
Speaker 1: DA of Fulton County, Georgia, Paul Howard Junior talking about
Speaker 1: the case of this region shooting a Raychard Brooks. Let's
Speaker 1: go back to this bitness. Photograph illustrates is the point
Speaker 1: that Officer A Raw at this point were aspiring matagor
Speaker 1: and this is missus Brooks who was firing matagor as well,
Speaker 1: but I don't knew if you can see it clearly
Speaker 1: the prongs of the table the teager we're actually fired
Speaker 1: above Officer Ross head might also look at the position
Speaker 1: of officers Row in mister Brooks that they are here
Speaker 1: next to this red automobile. If we look at the
Speaker 1: next photograph Tramp, than if we look at the next photograph,
Speaker 1: we'll see that the positions of both parties they've changed.
Speaker 1: Mister Brooks has now moved away from hi original position,
Speaker 1: and we estimate the distances probably about twelve feet and
Speaker 1: Officer Roth has moved about ten feet from the position
Speaker 1: in what is our exhibit number one. This second video
Speaker 1: or second still shows the very instance that the shot
Speaker 1: was fired into the back of mister Brooks, and we
Speaker 1: have also calculated the distance and the distance that they
Speaker 1: are part of that time was eighteen feet three inches
Speaker 1: at the time that this shot was fired. So based
Speaker 1: upon that information, we have concluded that mister Brooks was
Speaker 1: running away at the time that the shot was fired.
Speaker 1: Mister Brooks was shot twice the back. One of the
Speaker 1: shots was a center shot to the back that penetrated
Speaker 1: his heart, and it was done by a nine millimeter block. Now,
Speaker 1: one of the things that we also relied upon in
Speaker 1: our conclusion is something that is called under the law,
Speaker 1: or referred to as an excited utterance, and that's when
Speaker 1: someone makes an immediate statement and because it is made
Speaker 1: without the ability to consult with counsel or to think
Speaker 1: about it, under the law of an excited utterance is
Speaker 1: considered as highly reliable. And at the time that the
Speaker 1: shot was fired, the utterance made by Officer Roff was
Speaker 1: I got it. That was a statement that was made
Speaker 1: at that time. We also noted that Officer Roff was
Speaker 1: firing a taser at mister Brooks. The City of Atlanta
Speaker 1: SOPs in fact prohibit officers from firing tasers at someone
Speaker 1: who is running away. So the City of Atlanta says,
Speaker 1: you cannot even fire a taser at someone who is
Speaker 1: running away. So you certainly can't fire a gun, a
Speaker 1: handgun at someone who is running away. So, in addition
Speaker 1: to our findings, as many of you all already know,
Speaker 1: that the Atlanta mayor, Mayor Keisha Bottoms and the Police
Speaker 1: Department concluded that Officer Roth's actions were excessive and in
Speaker 1: violation of APD's SOPD. As an SOP I believe it's
Speaker 1: four point one point one, and after their analysis that
Speaker 1: the actions were excessive, Officer Roth was fired. We have
Speaker 1: also concluded that Roth was aware that the taser in
Speaker 1: Brooks's possession, that it was fired twice, and once it's
Speaker 1: fired twice, it presented no danger to him. Are there
Speaker 1: any other persons? Now, we have had something quite remarkable
Speaker 1: to happen, and it involves the testimony of the other officer,
Speaker 1: Devin Brosden. Because Officer Brosden has now become a state's witness,
Speaker 1: he has decided to testify on behalf of the state
Speaker 1: in this case. What he has said to us, that is,
Speaker 1: within a matter of days, he plans to make a
Speaker 1: statement regarding the culpability of Officer Roth, but he indicated
Speaker 1: that he is not psychological willing to give that statement
Speaker 1: to date. Officer Brosdon, however, has admitted that he was
Speaker 1: in fact standing on mister Brooks's body immediately after the shooting.
Speaker 1: So these are the charges that we have had fili
Speaker 1: day signed by one of our superior court judges. These
Speaker 1: are the eleven charges against Officer Roth. The first charge
Speaker 1: is felony murder. This is a death that is as
Speaker 1: a result of an underlying felony, and in this case,
Speaker 1: the underlying felony is aggravating the salt with a deadly weapon,
Speaker 1: and the possible sentences for a felony murder conviction would
Speaker 1: be life, life with our parole or the death penalty.
Speaker 1: Now he's also charged by in the rest warrant with
Speaker 1: aggivated assault with a deadly weapon, and this is an
Speaker 1: account charging him for the shooting of mister Brooks, and
Speaker 1: the possible sentence for aggivated assault is one of the
Speaker 1: twenty years. The second or the third aggivated assault account
Speaker 1: is for the shooting towards our in the direction of
Speaker 1: mister Melvin Evans. Mister Evans was the person who was
Speaker 1: seated in the car. We have the picture of mister
Speaker 1: Hope and if you would point out this automobile is
Speaker 1: the place that mister Evans and his two companions were
Speaker 1: driving and the shot was fired, and I believe we've
Speaker 1: also got a photo of the shot that ended up
Speaker 1: in the vehicle. Thank you. Gotta standing up. And so
Speaker 1: with count um four, uh with at who was in
Speaker 1: I think a little difficulty there. As soon as we
Speaker 1: get the audio back, uh, if you're just joining us,
Speaker 1: Uh wow, just unfolding really and in live time before
Speaker 1: our eyes here and that was Paul. All right, we
Speaker 1: have the audio back. Paul Howard, Junior, Pulton County DA
Speaker 1: towards or in the direction of Michael Perkins. Mister Perkins
Speaker 1: seated in the rear of this same vehicle at that time.
Speaker 1: There's a charge for criminal damage for shooting into that vehicle. Also,
Speaker 1: Officer Roff is also Officer Roff is charged with seven
Speaker 1: violations of office. Each one of those carries a one
Speaker 1: to five sentence. These are violations of his oath of
Speaker 1: office for the City of Atlanta, arresting mister Brooks for
Speaker 1: the d UI without immediately informing him of the arrests,
Speaker 1: shooting a taser at mister Brooks while he was running away,
Speaker 1: which again is a violation. All right, uh wow, if
Speaker 1: you're just joining us, a lot to go through here.
Speaker 1: That's Paul Howard, Junior, Fulton County, Georgia District Attorney saying
Speaker 1: a lot there. The second officer, not the one that
Speaker 1: fired the shot, apparently is turned state witness. There are
Speaker 1: eleven specific charges in this case, and starting with felony murder,
Speaker 1: aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, possible life sentence for
Speaker 1: Officer Rolf. All right, glad you with us, Howard too,
Speaker 1: Sean Hannity Show, We start with the breaking news. Now
Speaker 1: there's a question and answer period. The DA of Fulton
Speaker 1: County in Georgia, Paul Howard, has now announced these charging
Speaker 1: officer Garrett Rolf that is the officer in this Wendy's
Speaker 1: parking lot shooting that took place with eleven counts including
Speaker 1: felony murder, aggravated assault, criminal damage to property, violations of
Speaker 1: his oath. Officer Devon Bronson is being charged with aggravated
Speaker 1: assault and two violations of his oath of office. The
Speaker 1: DA said they were able to interview several witnesses to
Speaker 1: the shooting, as well as eight videos that recorded the incident,
Speaker 1: including the surveillance, the bodycams, personal cell phones of people
Speaker 1: that were there a witnesses. He said that they have
Speaker 1: examined the tasers stun guns used. I never had an
Speaker 1: answer to this question to shoot once or twice. That
Speaker 1: was resolved, that shot twice. He talked also about the
Speaker 1: officers failing to render aid, which by law they need
Speaker 1: to do as quickly as possible, and it took two
Speaker 1: minutes and twelve seconds. He talked a lot about the
Speaker 1: original time lapse in this forty one minute, seventeen seconds
Speaker 1: and That was a point that I made in my
Speaker 1: analysis of this is that up until the moment when
Speaker 1: the officers tried to cuff in this particular case, Raychard Brooks,
Speaker 1: everything was fine. Everyone's seeing professional, courteous. It was even
Speaker 1: a rapport established. In the case of officer the second officer,
Speaker 1: Devon Bronson, he had said, I'm sorry to hear about
Speaker 1: your mother's death. We just got to do this. Make
Speaker 1: it's make sure it's okay for you to drive. Then
Speaker 1: as that moment everything changed. There's a lot of other,
Speaker 1: you know, other issues involved in this. We're gonna get
Speaker 1: to our legal panel here in just a second, but
Speaker 1: the two minutes twelve seconds. He also I had not
Speaker 1: heard this by anybody before the DA, claiming that the
Speaker 1: one the officer involved in the actual shooter shooting incident,
Speaker 1: Officer rolf had actually kicked mister Brooks as he was
Speaker 1: on the ground. Officer Bronson said he stood on mister
Speaker 1: Brooks's shoulder. Not sure exactly what that is, but you
Speaker 1: gotta understand here, when we're talking about the charges eleven total,
Speaker 1: and that they're charging him for felony murdered, that could
Speaker 1: be a life. That could be life if you talk
Speaker 1: about the second charge, aggravated assault in that particular charge,
Speaker 1: now you're talking about one. I'm sorry, you're literally now
Speaker 1: one to twenty years. That's aggravated assault with a deadly weapon,
Speaker 1: criminal damage to property, violation of oath. Now the biggest
Speaker 1: I think the most interesting development to me in this
Speaker 1: is that the second officer, Devin Bronson, apparently has turned
Speaker 1: to state witness says he will make a statement on
Speaker 1: the culpability of Officer Rolf who was the actual actually
Speaker 1: involved in the shooting, did admit that he stood on
Speaker 1: his shoulder after the shooting. I'm sure there's video of
Speaker 1: that and anyway here to break down this from a
Speaker 1: legal point of view, we bring in David Shoon's Civil
Speaker 1: Liberties Attorney board member. By the way, Alabama Civil Liberties
Speaker 1: Union former board member Leo Terrell, civil rights attorney is
Speaker 1: with us Vince Ellison, conservative columnist, lecturer, author of the
Speaker 1: book They Iron Triangle. Leo, I'm gonna start with you today.
Speaker 1: A lot of times in these cases, you know, we
Speaker 1: have what we call overcharging, right, I think that And
Speaker 1: it was an interesting post on Twitter by by Jonathan Turley,
Speaker 1: a friend of mine said and talking about this specific
Speaker 1: case and what he was saying, the new evidence is
Speaker 1: important and any abuse following the shooting could be a
Speaker 1: basis for different charges. He talks about Tennessee v. Gardner.
Speaker 1: You know, would would would focus on the actual shooting itself,
Speaker 1: and you have a wide variety of charges here, and
Speaker 1: that Gardners would be focused on the shooting, not the
Speaker 1: abuse following the shooting. But now that the other officer
Speaker 1: is a state witness that will testify against Rolf, that's
Speaker 1: Bronson against Wolf, I agree with him, that could be
Speaker 1: a game changer. Under the case law in the area,
Speaker 1: it would otherwise be a lot tougher for the prosecution.
Speaker 1: Now there will be a jury of twelve people that
Speaker 1: will ultimately now make these decisions. And in other cases
Speaker 1: we've seen and we've witnessed this over the years, Leo,
Speaker 1: and if you overcharge, you take a great risk in
Speaker 1: doing so. What are your thoughts, Well, Sean, you did
Speaker 1: a great summary of this and I got twenty five
Speaker 1: years of police miss conduct cases and I'll tell you
Speaker 1: right now very clearly, first of all, overcharging, no question
Speaker 1: about it. Tennessee Gardner is in play. Is the case
Speaker 1: that basically concerns what was in Rows state of mind.
Speaker 1: The other officer can't tell the jury what was in
Speaker 1: Rows state of mind when he fired those shots. Let's
Speaker 1: also remember that mister Brooks, when he was running, he
Speaker 1: was a flee seller himself, and that's gonna be played
Speaker 1: because he assaulted those officers, took the officers stun gun
Speaker 1: and start running. So he is a flee feller. Not
Speaker 1: like the situation we have in the Floyd case. This
Speaker 1: case is totally separate. So there's a lot of facts
Speaker 1: of the district attorney did not talk about, and of
Speaker 1: course he did not make any reference or any statements
Speaker 1: as to what was in officers rows state of mind
Speaker 1: because he doesn't know what I'm saying. Well, he did
Speaker 1: try to say. He tried to imply with his immediate
Speaker 1: what they call utterance when he said, apparently on tape,
Speaker 1: I got him. You don't know. I don't know how
Speaker 1: you interpret that word I got him other than meaning
Speaker 1: that he aimed and he shot and he didn't miss
Speaker 1: or something like that. I mean, you can interpret it
Speaker 1: a million ways. In my view, you're rate that statement
Speaker 1: I got him. He's that after he failed. Down Again,
Speaker 1: we're talking about what led up to him firing that weapon.
Speaker 1: What did he see? What did he see or did
Speaker 1: he fear? For example, that he thought that he was
Speaker 1: going to be shot with the stun gun, that he
Speaker 1: was going to be overpowered, and this guy was going
Speaker 1: to take his his gut weapon from him. There is
Speaker 1: a variety of different factors. Let me sum up by
Speaker 1: saying that this is a jury fact question overcharge. I
Speaker 1: think they weigh overcharged selling the murdered. That meant that
Speaker 1: basically the officer was committee felony as he was pursuing
Speaker 1: him with his gun and shot it regardless. There's one
Speaker 1: other interesting thing that he said. Under Georgia law, you're
Speaker 1: not allowed to fire a taser at anyone running away. Well,
Speaker 1: there might be a mitigating circumstance, that being that he
Speaker 1: turned around and I believe from what I saw, fired
Speaker 1: the taser in the direction of the officer. He made
Speaker 1: another statement that Officer Rolf was aware that the taser
Speaker 1: had been fired twice. I've been waiting to hear how
Speaker 1: many times that taser could be fired again. There will
Speaker 1: be a defense and a defense attorney that is going
Speaker 1: to challenge all of that. Let me let me follow up.
Speaker 1: I saved that you have had a lot of experts
Speaker 1: on your show, a lot of police experts who are
Speaker 1: going to justify this officer's conduct. And let me tell
Speaker 1: you right now, Georgia state law is one thing. But
Speaker 1: that US Supreme Court case that you keep mentionedy the
Speaker 1: listeners should know Tennessee versus Gardner and Graham versus Connor.
Speaker 1: Those cases control everything. Shote bomb line, tough case. Either
Speaker 1: he will overcharge. And let's not forget the DA is
Speaker 1: up for reelection. Let's go to David Shoon, your defense attorney.
Speaker 1: This is what you do. How do you look at
Speaker 1: the case, the charges, and everything else in between. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I suppose I agree and disagree with some of what
Speaker 1: mister Treille said. First of all, the Cousti charge felony murder,
Speaker 1: the officer's state of mind is not directly relevant. That
Speaker 1: is what they One advantage the government has is they
Speaker 1: don't have to prove malice under Georgia law. The statue
Speaker 1: read sixty and five to one s person commits defensive
Speaker 1: felony murder. A commission of a felony causes the death
Speaker 1: of another without irrespective of malice. I think it's an
Speaker 1: overcharge because it shouldn't have been charged a felony murder.
Speaker 1: They had to struggle at first. The felony murder has
Speaker 1: to be an assault was committed something like that. The
Speaker 1: key here it's a self defense case from the defense standpoint,
Speaker 1: and the bad facts though for that is that he
Speaker 1: was shot in the back. A taser can be considered
Speaker 1: a deadly weapon. If he fired the taser the officer,
Speaker 1: and the officer convinces the jury he feared for his life,
Speaker 1: then the officer could win Tennessee versus. Gardner says, you
Speaker 1: can't just shoot a fleeing felon. You have to believe
Speaker 1: that he was posed an immocent, imminent danger to yourself
Speaker 1: or to a third. Okay, based on the tape as
Speaker 1: you see it. From a legal perspective, again, you're a
Speaker 1: defense attorney, a civil rights attorney like Leo. When the when,
Speaker 1: when in fact they turned and shot the taser? Does
Speaker 1: that then make the standard? In other words, this is
Speaker 1: a legal question, does that legally warrant turn in? It
Speaker 1: can turn in a matter of seconds if he's facing him,
Speaker 1: and that's when the cops shoots. The cop has a
Speaker 1: lot better case Once he turned. The forensic shows he
Speaker 1: shot him in the back. He was running away. Apparently
Speaker 1: we don't know that yet. A different forensic law says
Speaker 1: you're not allowed to fire a taser and anyone running away.
Speaker 1: That's yeah, that's the law, by the way, around the country,
Speaker 1: there are a number of cases it say, as long
Speaker 1: as the person did no longer posed and spend his threat,
Speaker 1: you can't even fire a taser at him. It sounds counterintuitive,
Speaker 1: but that's the law. I had a case in Alabama
Speaker 1: in which guy was running away and the cop understood
Speaker 1: the law to be because he had committed a felony,
Speaker 1: he could shoot him. He shot him and killed him.
Speaker 1: That cop ended up becoming our best witness because that
Speaker 1: was a mistaken policy. The jurisdiction hadn't changed it after
Speaker 1: Tennessee versus Gardner Vince Ellison. I know you're not an
Speaker 1: attorney by background. We have a lot of horrific things
Speaker 1: that we've been watching going around the country. Universally, everyone's
Speaker 1: condemned what happened to George Floyd. Very different case here,
Speaker 1: still sad and tragic, and he just you know, if
Speaker 1: you go all that time, forty one minutes and seventeen seconds,
Speaker 1: and everyone was professional courteous, respectful, and it's so sad
Speaker 1: all of it to me. Well, those two, the two
Speaker 1: lawyers who have gave great, great analysis. Here's the political analysis.
Speaker 1: Those officers didn't have a chance. They saw the mob
Speaker 1: in that last and they were going to charge them
Speaker 1: no matter what. That is the political landscape the guy
Speaker 1: got But let me, let me, let me play Devil's advocate.
Speaker 1: I'm playing it on both sides now, okay, But he
Speaker 1: got shot twice in the back. Is it if you're
Speaker 1: not allowed to fire a taser at anyone running away,
Speaker 1: the guy turns back and shoots it, they're gonna have
Speaker 1: to prove that he knew that it had been fired twice.
Speaker 1: I didn't know whether it had one or two shots
Speaker 1: at that moment. Is that? Does that meet the legal standard?
Speaker 1: In other words? In other words, that you believe there's
Speaker 1: a real threat of physical injury. Well, for my law
Speaker 1: enforcement experience, you know, I was a corressonal officer. I
Speaker 1: think I've done I don't think officers should have to
Speaker 1: take any type of punishment. I think he chose to
Speaker 1: turn around and shoot at the officer. The officer, whatever
Speaker 1: his mind, will have to testify as that. But politically,
Speaker 1: it did not matter what happened. Those officers are going
Speaker 1: to go down. That ain't the biggest game changers. The
Speaker 1: other officers, attorney, state witnesses, announced by the DA, by
Speaker 1: the prosecutor. I'll tell you, I'll tell you what I'm
Speaker 1: troubled by that. First of all, I said, Ellison is
Speaker 1: absolutely right. But I'll tell you what I'm troubled by.
Speaker 1: The prosecutor here went well beyond what he's entitled to
Speaker 1: do under the rules of ethics, both the American Bar
Speaker 1: Association Standards for the prosecution and George's rules of ethics.
Speaker 1: He cannot align himself exclusively with the victim, throw the
Speaker 1: cop under the or any any defendant under the bus,
Speaker 1: and then host a press conference for a great lawyer. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean that was all right. Stay on that point,
Speaker 1: David Leo Terrell, David shown Vince Ellison. More on the
Speaker 1: other side, Bill O'Reilly. Today we are one hundred and
Speaker 1: thirty nine days out of an election. We'll get to
Speaker 1: that doctor oz on whether or not it's a second
Speaker 1: wave of COVID, And as we roll along eight hundred
Speaker 1: and nine four one, Sean, you want to be a
Speaker 1: part of the program, Bill O'Reilly at the bottom of
Speaker 1: the hour. Yeah, we still do have an election in
Speaker 1: one hundred and thirty nine days. We'll get us take
Speaker 1: on that. Also, we'll check in with doctor Oz, the rise, COVID,
Speaker 1: protest rallies and everything in between. But the Fulton County
Speaker 1: District Attorney Paul Howard announcing that the officer in the
Speaker 1: Atlanta shooting at the Wendy's Park a lot now has
Speaker 1: well been charged with many separate issues, including felony murder
Speaker 1: aggravated assault. Could be a life or even a death
Speaker 1: penalty case. Anyway, all right, we don't have a lot
Speaker 1: of time, David. The point you were making on this,
Speaker 1: and I don't want to get Leo's take. Yeah, the
Speaker 1: point I was making is the prosecutor went way overboard
Speaker 1: today in holding this press conference and hosting a victim's lawyer.
Speaker 1: He has to be neutral. The public depends on it,
Speaker 1: The integrity system depends on it. These two experts have
Speaker 1: told you like it is. Mister Ellison is right. Politically,
Speaker 1: it's a tough political climate. Mister Terrell is an expert
Speaker 1: in police misconduct. He knows about people running away. He
Speaker 1: demanded an investigation nineteen ninet nine in the Mitchell case
Speaker 1: for that. So he's calling it straight for you, but
Speaker 1: the prosecutor's got to be neutral. What's tough in this
Speaker 1: case is it's tough to beat forensics in the back.
Speaker 1: Is a tough, tough way to go with self defense.
Speaker 1: And you've got his fellow officer turning state's witness in
Speaker 1: this case. Leo, I agree with thanks David from the comments,
Speaker 1: and I agree. Look, this was this was a performance.
Speaker 1: He was arguing. The district attorney was arguing his case
Speaker 1: before the public. He argues his case in the court
Speaker 1: of law, and that today was well beyond just laying
Speaker 1: out the facts, what I think is also very important.
Speaker 1: That gives a defense attorney now and opportunity. If I'm
Speaker 1: a defense attorney, I'm loving it. But I'm just saying
Speaker 1: from an ethical standpoint, as David point out, totally inappropriate.
Speaker 1: Totally inappropriate. And I guarantee you this case is going
Speaker 1: to take place six seven months down the line after
Speaker 1: the elections, totally political motivated in this climate overcharge. Vince
Speaker 1: Sellison thoughts, yeah, man, they they're allowing mob rule to
Speaker 1: dictate justice. And you found the brave people in times
Speaker 1: like these We've seen the old Westerns where lynch mob
Speaker 1: comes to a jail to take a guy and hang him,
Speaker 1: and the sheriff stands here by yourself with one gun
Speaker 1: and back them all up. We don't have that anymore
Speaker 1: these people, look, you know, but ultimately this is where
Speaker 1: it goes. Vince. You you gotta convince a jury of
Speaker 1: twelve beyond a reasonable doubt. Leo David, the lawyers you
Speaker 1: agree that's a high standard, right, Oh, yes, okay, you
Speaker 1: want all you needs one? All right? So with that
Speaker 1: in mind, Vince, you know this this will play out.
Speaker 1: Justice will be the process are The process is the punishment.
Speaker 1: They filed these men, they slanted their names, they destroyed
Speaker 1: their reputation, and so the process is gonna be a
Speaker 1: grueling one. And they're gonna put thisiness between this and
Speaker 1: what happened. And they were afraid of the mob playing
Speaker 1: this something. They know what they do is wrong, but
Speaker 1: they're cowards and they've been doing this for years in
Speaker 1: these democratics. I think you're talking to sort of a
Speaker 1: political argument. I'm looking at the legal side. It is
Speaker 1: gonna be what it's gonna be. It's gonna be twelve
Speaker 1: people on a jury that decide. All right, Vince, thank you, David,
Speaker 1: thank you, Leo, Thank you Leo, and t V tonight.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Now, getting back to your first question, which was,
Speaker 1: what about months or so or two or three ago
Speaker 1: when people were saying, you don't really need to wear
Speaker 1: a mask. Well, the reason for that is that we
Speaker 1: were concerned the public health community and many people were
Speaker 1: saying this, were concerned that it was at a time
Speaker 1: when personal protective equipment, including the N ninety five masks
Speaker 1: and the surgical masks, were in very short supply, and
Speaker 1: we wanted to make sure that the people, namely the
Speaker 1: healthcare workers who are brave enough to put themselves in
Speaker 1: a harm way to take care of people who you know,
Speaker 1: were infected with the coronavirus and the danger of them
Speaker 1: getting infected, We did not want them to be without
Speaker 1: the equipment that they needed, all right, Well, not everybody
Speaker 1: had to have an N ninety five mask. Look, I
Speaker 1: use this one anecdote over and over and over and
Speaker 1: over again. Had a conversation with a woman at my
Speaker 1: local grocery store, and I see the same guys in
Speaker 1: the shelves, same cashiers every week, and in my particular
Speaker 1: grocery store, my particular pharmacy, nobody ever got COVID. Everybody
Speaker 1: wore a mask. I didn't see many people within ninety
Speaker 1: five masks on. I saw a couple, but not many.
Speaker 1: So I'm at face shields even but nobody in either
Speaker 1: store got it now, doctor Fauci. And it's not a criticism.
Speaker 1: This was evolving. We were all led to We've got
Speaker 1: over everybody's timeline. The worst decision made by the four
Speaker 1: governors in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, and
Speaker 1: that was they didn't protect the vulnerable. So I'm not
Speaker 1: blaming doctor Fauci. But you know, and I know some
Speaker 1: of you are upset that I say, just wear the masks,
Speaker 1: let's open, let's open safely. And I get it. Maybe
Speaker 1: I certainly have a different perspective, but it worked, And
Speaker 1: that anecdote for me is very powerful because at the
Speaker 1: epicenter of this virus, the guys that were in the stores,
Speaker 1: seeing the most amount of people every day never got it,
Speaker 1: not one, and they all wore masks, most wore gloves.
Speaker 1: So for me, I like to learn from the things
Speaker 1: that worked and we did well and adjust and change
Speaker 1: the things that we did wrong. Now with that said,
Speaker 1: you know, nobody was talking about COVID nineteen at all
Speaker 1: on the left when the protests which still are going
Speaker 1: on and a city blocks now taken over, and even
Speaker 1: some of the politicians. We're out there marching with no
Speaker 1: social distancing at all, and not everybody at a mask
Speaker 1: during these protests. But now that Donald Trump is going
Speaker 1: to have a rally in Oklahoma this weekend, now we're
Speaker 1: back to talking about how it can't be safe. So
Speaker 1: my humble suggestion is the President just needs to call
Speaker 1: it a protest and then I guess they'll be fine
Speaker 1: with it. But by the way, everybody will have a
Speaker 1: mask on at the rally. Probably the president will not
Speaker 1: because he will be completely social socially distant. Anyway, here
Speaker 1: to weigh in and update us, they're now about nineteen states.
Speaker 1: I always said it's if not when. I'm sorry, it's
Speaker 1: when not if that we're going to have hot spots.
Speaker 1: We've seen them and we've dealt with a number of
Speaker 1: them very successfully. We bring back our medical a team
Speaker 1: that conan only one thing, doctor, sir, how are you
Speaker 1: so I'm doing well? You know, it's interesting we look
Speaker 1: at the expectations we've all crafted. And just to follow
Speaker 1: up on what you were saying, the Swedish Minister of
Speaker 1: Health and the folks who crafted their program to keep
Speaker 1: the country open always made one really poignant point and
Speaker 1: there's nothing you can say about it except they're right,
Speaker 1: which is, yes, we didn't shut down. The rest of
Speaker 1: the world's mostly shut down. We get the difference, and
Speaker 1: our country is okay, we're doing. Your country's okay with
Speaker 1: what you're doing. But one day you're going to have
Speaker 1: to open. And when you do open, you're basically can
Speaker 1: be using our model, the Swedish model. So now we're
Speaker 1: the Swedish model. We're opening up many parts of the country.
Speaker 1: You're pretty wide open, but we've got to deal with it.
Speaker 1: The way Sweden dealt with them, how did they get
Speaker 1: through this without a catastrophe. They doubled down on social distancing,
Speaker 1: wearing masks. People just acted responsibly and calmly towards each other. Day.
Speaker 1: By the way, also had a problem in the nursing
Speaker 1: homes you mentioned the four states that really got hit hard.
Speaker 1: That's when are we just cannot compromise. I went to
Speaker 1: a nursing home in New Jersey which is what my
Speaker 1: home is. A friend of mine actually runs a couple
Speaker 1: and I wanted to see what it looks like, what
Speaker 1: are the real issues, and he and all the people
Speaker 1: may the nursing one was lit. Was livid that for
Speaker 1: a while they had been forced and up more important
Speaker 1: to other facilities that really worked up to escape because
Speaker 1: they didn't know how to actually deal with COVID nineteen.
Speaker 1: Were forced to take COVID nineteen patients and that led
Speaker 1: you half to deaths in New Jersey, New York. Being
Speaker 1: from in nursing homes, you know, I gotta sing your praises,
Speaker 1: and I know you don't like when I do this,
Speaker 1: but I'm going to be mean into it anyway. So
Speaker 1: a close friend of my sisters, a woman that happens
Speaker 1: to be in her fifties as kids, she had COVID
Speaker 1: really bad. She was on a ventilator for over six
Speaker 1: weeks maybe I think six and a half. At one
Speaker 1: point she had a track put in. I mean it
Speaker 1: was it was touch and go for a long period.
Speaker 1: And doctor Oz checked in regularly with the doctors that
Speaker 1: were working on the case her case, offering advice, suggestions, help, assistance,
Speaker 1: anything you could do. And she's now home, she's got
Speaker 1: rehab to go through. You know a lot of a
Speaker 1: lot of difficulties if you're in a hospital bed nearly
Speaker 1: two months like that. Um, but you're a rock star
Speaker 1: and I know many other cases where you did the same.
Speaker 1: And when I said you aren't sleeping during this you
Speaker 1: aren't sleeping during this time. Thank you for that keeping
Speaker 1: Sean Hannity hours because a lot of a lot of
Speaker 1: the effort was almost giving pep talks to the caregivers
Speaker 1: because it's it is emotionally incredibly draining when you're desperately
Speaker 1: trying to financers and there's no textbook. In fact, the
Speaker 1: reason that I'm so happy today is because of this
Speaker 1: dex metho zone study that came out of the UK.
Speaker 1: And just for everyone who I have missed it, this
Speaker 1: an important deal. Next methods is a simple steroid. It's
Speaker 1: not the kind you used to build muscles. It's the
Speaker 1: one we use for allergies and inflammation and lupus by
Speaker 1: the way, just like hydrog ychloroquine. And they found that
Speaker 1: they could use it in people who were already having
Speaker 1: trouble breathing. So you don't use it early in the
Speaker 1: case the way you make other medications. This is designed
Speaker 1: for people who already on oxygen, in which case they
Speaker 1: cut depths by a fifth, or if you had a ventilator,
Speaker 1: in which as you know, Sean had a very high mortality,
Speaker 1: especially early on. They cut depths in UK by a
Speaker 1: third if they gave a simple, easy, inexpensive, accessible drug,
Speaker 1: and so it's not the standard or care. Twenty four
Speaker 1: hours later in the UK, most American centers were already
Speaker 1: experimenting with it. We were trying to give it to
Speaker 1: patients like our mutual friend and others, just trying to
Speaker 1: buy time to the bodies of the overreaction to the
Speaker 1: virus could be mitigated. But this gives us, and other
Speaker 1: advances like this give us a little bit more breathing
Speaker 1: room because for the vast majority of people who get
Speaker 1: sick and don't have risk factors like obesity and hypertension,
Speaker 1: iabtes the kinds of things that we'd make them called
Speaker 1: vulnerable for the CDC. But if you're not vulnerable, you
Speaker 1: don't get them into the hospital. Ninety five percent of
Speaker 1: hospital admissions are vulnerable. Eighty percent of people who die
Speaker 1: over the age of sixty five. The average death age
Speaker 1: is eighty. So we know who's at list, keep them
Speaker 1: out of the way, protect them, and you can copy swedeen,
Speaker 1: which is what we're doing now, and and do reasonably
Speaker 1: well not perfect good data vaccine, but you know, we
Speaker 1: can get through this if we do that. You know,
Speaker 1: we've had all these protests going on now for a
Speaker 1: couple of weeks. We do have states now that are
Speaker 1: seeing hotspots come up, nineteen or twenty of them. Numbers
Speaker 1: are not like what happened at the peak of all
Speaker 1: of this by any stretch, you know, but we're seeing
Speaker 1: this happen. What will the protests, you know, what will
Speaker 1: the aftermath of that likely teach us or show us?
Speaker 1: And not just the protest, then the other the bad
Speaker 1: part of it which led to rioting are saluting and
Speaker 1: all other behavior. But there was no social distancing. There
Speaker 1: were many without masks. And you know, what are we
Speaker 1: going to learn from all of this? And what do
Speaker 1: you make of this increase of incidents in some states? Well,
Speaker 1: you know that nineteen states, as you mentioned, have an increase,
Speaker 1: but seven have a sixty percent or greater increase over
Speaker 1: the past week. That's a meaningful things. Just focus on
Speaker 1: those seven and four of those have increased hospitalization. So
Speaker 1: that's where the rule issues are. I mean, there's no question.
Speaker 1: I don't think you can argue that the protests are
Speaker 1: going to result in more cases. Hopefully they're younger people,
Speaker 1: so they don't pay a significant price generally, and hopefully
Speaker 1: because they are outdoors, the virus get spread around, so
Speaker 1: if they were wearing a mask, it reduces a chance
Speaker 1: of them having a problem. Outdoor activities are much less
Speaker 1: problematic because you don't have a small, unventilated room where
Speaker 1: one person who's got virus coming out of their mouth
Speaker 1: spreads to everybody else. However, just to be concrete about it,
Speaker 1: Mary de Blasio today says we're not going to for
Speaker 1: sure open up New York City to the next stage
Speaker 1: on Monday, even though we're supposed to, if you know,
Speaker 1: the numbers are perfect in terms of following guidelines, because
Speaker 1: he's worried that because of the protests, you might see
Speaker 1: the increase cases. So even if it doesn't actually do anything,
Speaker 1: the fact that our leadership is considering it as as
Speaker 1: a factor that may impact whether we open or not,
Speaker 1: it's a problem in New Jersey. I mean, I went
Speaker 1: out with my son to play tennis yesterday, and the
Speaker 1: parks are still closed, and I'm sort of stunned and
Speaker 1: thinking about me how it's not possible. I don't understand.
Speaker 1: There's no defensible medical reason. I don't think to keep
Speaker 1: a park closed. So in a beautiful June afternoon, kids
Speaker 1: can't go out and play, except that you're trying to
Speaker 1: do things just in case something bad is about to hit.
Speaker 1: And that's where I feel that, even though you know
Speaker 1: we should be equal across the board, we may be
Speaker 1: paying a price already, even if we don't see a spike,
Speaker 1: you know. I look, all of that is true, but
Speaker 1: again we go to the most vulnerable population, those who
Speaker 1: have compromised immune systems underlying health conditions. Older people certainly
Speaker 1: more than younger people. That is pretty much health steady,
Speaker 1: so that they really have to take the extra precautions.
Speaker 1: And one of the reasons I know I haven't made
Speaker 1: much progress on this, but I guess maybe with the
Speaker 1: President's rally that has taken place, they had almost a
Speaker 1: million people want to go to this thing, and I
Speaker 1: think that's room for a couple hundred thousand, so it's
Speaker 1: gonna be a lot of people. But all the people
Speaker 1: will be asked to have masks. Everybody's going to go
Speaker 1: through a temperature check. These are things that you and
Speaker 1: I discussed about opening stadiums. Everyone's saying, Okay, you know
Speaker 1: the risk, you're accepting the risks, and you have to
Speaker 1: abide by the guidelines they're putting out there. What are
Speaker 1: your thoughts? Well, I don't I don't think it's wise
Speaker 1: to get people to expose themselves to potential infected individuals.
Speaker 1: You know, certainly be outdoors to the best you can,
Speaker 1: to stay with everybody else. And for sure, if you're
Speaker 1: one of the folks who has a risk factor that
Speaker 1: makes you vulnerable, if you overweight, if you're hypertensive, if
Speaker 1: you're diabetic, you've got chronic lung issues, you should not
Speaker 1: attend the rally because God forbid, someone that you walk by,
Speaker 1: and it's not necessarily the person that needs you're standing
Speaker 1: next to. It could be someone you know getting into
Speaker 1: the portal tip wherever this place the thing is going
Speaker 1: to be held, could invect you and you might have
Speaker 1: to be getting infection there, but you're not going to
Speaker 1: know it. Here's the question, Sean. Five days later, you
Speaker 1: wake up and you got a little sore throat. I mean,
Speaker 1: you have COVID nineteen or not. Right, You're gonna be
Speaker 1: in your mind thinking maybe I have COVID nineteen. Now
Speaker 1: you're destroying quality of life for people and getting folks panicked,
Speaker 1: and when it they're appropriately socially distancing, they don't. The
Speaker 1: thing that gives you the most peace of mind is
Speaker 1: I do everything I can, and I'm out as bad
Speaker 1: as you are. I mentioned I was a nursing home.
Speaker 1: I went to the Cash Valley and Utah last week
Speaker 1: with a percentative that meat processing facility where they had,
Speaker 1: you know, hundreds of people who got infect That's what
Speaker 1: I understand what the issues are. So but I'm really careful.
Speaker 1: So when I get up in the morning with a
Speaker 1: sore throat, I'm not thinking COVID nineteen. I'm thinking I
Speaker 1: got a sore throat. And I think these are subtle issues.
Speaker 1: But why introduced risk? But you don't need to that's
Speaker 1: the big question. No, I think you look, you're given
Speaker 1: everybody good advice, do you see it? But potential for
Speaker 1: outdoor stadiums to open and baseball and football? And what
Speaker 1: are your feelings on the NFL? I know the US
Speaker 1: Open said they're gonna play, but there'll be nobody at
Speaker 1: the US Open. Well, I have a studio audience, as
Speaker 1: you know, of a couple hundred people, and I'm not
Speaker 1: going to be allowed to have audience members there. And
Speaker 1: I actually don't want to have audience members. I sent
Speaker 1: them home way before the city shut down for fear that.
Speaker 1: Imagine a fan of mine traveling all the way from
Speaker 1: wherever they came in the country to be in my
Speaker 1: audience and then I get sick. I mean, I think
Speaker 1: I had the opportunity to at least signal what I
Speaker 1: thought was appropriate for them to keep my people who
Speaker 1: are closest to me safe, And I think that's what
Speaker 1: most teams are going to be thinking. Do I want
Speaker 1: my fans worried that they don't actually get sick worried
Speaker 1: about this and they have a question I'm asking myself,
Speaker 1: was how impactful is it? When I talk to folks
Speaker 1: to own stadiums, and I've been called by different leagues,
Speaker 1: they say, you know, if I can put half the
Speaker 1: people in the stadium, does that really help me? They
Speaker 1: don't make the same kind of noise. It's probably not
Speaker 1: going to even be a half it's expensive to open up.
Speaker 1: I really get that much out of it. Or should
Speaker 1: it just be smart and to safe and make sure
Speaker 1: no one gets sick. We're not. We're talking about holding
Speaker 1: our breath for maybe six months. We are gonna have
Speaker 1: vaccines by the beginning part of twenty twenty one, and
Speaker 1: we should play our teams, play our events. A lot
Speaker 1: of the revenue for the leagues, and everyone knows comes
Speaker 1: from TV, radio and other venues. At least it's something
Speaker 1: that gives us all joy to watch our favorite players
Speaker 1: performed well. Then it becomes a math equation for the
Speaker 1: league's though, because they count on that money too. They'd
Speaker 1: be able to play the pay the players, and it
Speaker 1: gets complicated, and that's why the Major League Baseballs are fighting.
Speaker 1: But is that again? I'm just thinking long term. They
Speaker 1: know they're masically baseballs one hundred, one hundred and twenty
Speaker 1: thirty years old. I'm thinking that if they could just
Speaker 1: play and do this for kindness of the country and
Speaker 1: not have to worry about the distraction of this whether
Speaker 1: someone got sick. What happens the first time someone goes
Speaker 1: home and says, you know, I got COVID nineteen from
Speaker 1: the game you can't prove he's right, camp proves wrong. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we're stocking, all right, Quick break more with doctor Oz,
Speaker 1: our medical A team. Next, quick break right back. We'll continue,
Speaker 1: all right, as we continue with our medical A team
Speaker 1: and doctor Oz. Uh boy, it's been a rough ride.
Speaker 1: I'll tell you. It's you know, it's it's just one
Speaker 1: thing after another. It seems keep just keeps, you know, hitting.
Speaker 1: It's hard, but we'll get through it. We're Americans. We
Speaker 1: have the best medical scientists and researcher. Yeah, real quick,
Speaker 1: because I gotta go. I got bits between the new medications,
Speaker 1: overall increased care, and the vaccine, we are ahead of this.
Speaker 1: We don't have that much further to go, and I
Speaker 1: don't think we're gonna have to shut down again with
Speaker 1: what we're doing now. If we all behave ourselves, it's
Speaker 1: all right. That's good news, all right, doctor Oz, thanks
Speaker 1: so much for being with us. Eight hundred and nine
Speaker 1: four one sean, all right, simple man, Leonard Skinner. They
Speaker 1: can only be one thing, and that thing means all
Speaker 1: things Bill O'Reilly and all things bill O'Reilly or at
Speaker 1: bill O'Reilly dot com. Let me ask you a question.
Speaker 1: The world This has not been an easy here, mister O'Reilly.
Speaker 1: That's a simple observation from a fellow simple man. And
Speaker 1: I'm serious. I mean, look, we've had the worst pandemic
Speaker 1: since nineteen seventeen and eighteen as a country that's been rough.
Speaker 1: Then obviously what happened to mister Floyd never should have happened.
Speaker 1: That's been rough. The aftermath of that, you know, they're
Speaker 1: genuine universal outrage. I don't know anybody except crazy keyboard
Speaker 1: warriors in their basement and their underwear, you know, saying otherwise.
Speaker 1: And on top of that, then you got the lawlessness,
Speaker 1: and then the looters and the rioters. Eight hundred plus
Speaker 1: cops now injured, couple have died, one paralyzed for life.
Speaker 1: We understand in Vegas burning down police precincts, taking over
Speaker 1: city blocks in Seattle, and we have an election in
Speaker 1: one hundred and thirty nine days. Um, So, as you know,
Speaker 1: we're both simple man. Now, I'm glad I could get
Speaker 1: burned you by the way over to the show. I
Speaker 1: just why did I open myself up? I am so
Speaker 1: imla now that why did I do this? Me? So
Speaker 1: my simple question is why isn't anybody trying to solve
Speaker 1: the problem, the problem of injustice or income inequality. Why
Speaker 1: isn't anyone trying to solve that. Burning down a Wendy's.
Speaker 1: Is that solve it? I don't think so. So let
Speaker 1: me give you a real simple man scenario, something that
Speaker 1: happened this week. You know Brad Pitt, right, I don't know,
Speaker 1: and I don't know him personally. I know him as
Speaker 1: the actor I know, you know a lot of brilliant
Speaker 1: in that Tarantino Hollywood movie. So Jennifer Anderson is his
Speaker 1: former white you know our friends. So each of them
Speaker 1: announces through their PR people who they pay an enormous
Speaker 1: amount of money, that they're going to donate a million
Speaker 1: dollars each to an antique cop organization, an anti police organization. Okay,
Speaker 1: and I say to myself, what are you doing? If
Speaker 1: you're going to donate a million dollars, why don't you
Speaker 1: donate it to my Brother's Keeper, a mentoring organization that
Speaker 1: I worked with President Obama on? Why not give it
Speaker 1: to Best Friends Foundation, another mentoring organization in DC, or
Speaker 1: as I did yesterday Hannity, donate to Nassau County Big
Speaker 1: Brothers and Big Sisters in a mentoring capacity. I'll, by
Speaker 1: the way, I'll match your donation. Excellent, excellent. And I
Speaker 1: like big brothers and big sisters. I've never been a
Speaker 1: part of that organizations. I had to say. I had
Speaker 1: three kids and I stayed with them their whole into adulthood.
Speaker 1: But but it's a big donation, hanniy So, I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, pretty fast on the trigger there, But I'm
Speaker 1: holding you to it. But Mike, but you're getting my point.
Speaker 1: Why wouldn't you do good the money two organizations that
Speaker 1: are lifting people out of poverty and out of hatred
Speaker 1: into a system where they can have a terrific life
Speaker 1: like you have and I have, and Coland Powell has,
Speaker 1: and Ben Carson has and Barack Obama has. So, by
Speaker 1: the way, the only one thing that I gotta say
Speaker 1: is every simple guy you know drops the name of
Speaker 1: a former president and says, oh, yeah, well, I work
Speaker 1: with President Obama on this charity. Maybe I'm not as
Speaker 1: simple after all, Bill never happened to me. But Obama
Speaker 1: and I had common ground on this on this issue.
Speaker 1: What hating, Hannity, I know, I got it. I believe
Speaker 1: that I am a simple man, and I'm a former
Speaker 1: high school teacher, and I know that mentoring poor children
Speaker 1: with lousy parents or non existent parents is the only
Speaker 1: way to get these kids in a position seed And
Speaker 1: therefore any group that does this, Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston,
Speaker 1: you want to support, You don't want to support people
Speaker 1: who hate the police. The pills are good, look, I say,
Speaker 1: and I am watching. Now. It's to these police officers,
Speaker 1: all eight hundred thousand of them, to demonize them the
Speaker 1: way they're being demonized. It's not got to end. It's wrong,
Speaker 1: Bill over eight hundred cops now, a number of dead,
Speaker 1: eight hundred hurt, bottles, rocks, bricks, molotov cocktails, precincts burned
Speaker 1: to the ground, and precincts taken over by anarchists. Now,
Speaker 1: you know, here's the position that the president is in Illinois,
Speaker 1: New York, all these all these blue states that run
Speaker 1: into the ground for decades now and neglected by Democratic
Speaker 1: governors and mayors. They don't get the job done. Same thing.
Speaker 1: You know this The mayor the governor in Washington are
Speaker 1: just pathetic. I mean, this is oh no, it's it's
Speaker 1: like the Summer of Love. The autonomous zone, the chad zone,
Speaker 1: the chop zone, the spaghetti pot, lug zone, a festive atmosphere.
Speaker 1: You know, they all use the same words, and it's
Speaker 1: not that way. And there are business owners in there
Speaker 1: that are not being protected, and there are you know,
Speaker 1: there's a police precinct being run by the anarchists that
Speaker 1: took it over and chase the cops out, won't let
Speaker 1: them back in. And I guess they're negotiating they give
Speaker 1: back part of the city, but keep this part of
Speaker 1: the city. Okay, So we're watching all of this unfold.
Speaker 1: The president keeps offering help, they can keep saying no. Now,
Speaker 1: I think that for the president there is a bit
Speaker 1: of a trap because if the president goes in and
Speaker 1: God forbid, something happens in the process of taking back
Speaker 1: law and order, which they should do in the state level.
Speaker 1: President's offering all the help they want, and something happened.
Speaker 1: Trump did that, and so unless it gets to that moment,
Speaker 1: and we'll know in that moment comes My attitude is
Speaker 1: let Washington deal with Washington's problems. Let's Seattle deal with
Speaker 1: Seattle's problems. That they elected these guys, let them fix it. Well,
Speaker 1: I had a simple solution last night. I'm Bill O'Reilly
Speaker 1: dot com that I think Donald Trump should consider, and
Speaker 1: that is to send about one hundred US marshals to
Speaker 1: Seattle to guarantee that anyone trapped in this anarchy zone
Speaker 1: has the ability to get out and in when they
Speaker 1: want it. Well, can I just answer that one point?
Speaker 1: Are they You're not army, they're marshals. Every person apparently
Speaker 1: that wants to leave, come and go. If you're a
Speaker 1: resident there, that that that freedom does still exist. Although
Speaker 1: you notice they built a wall. I thought walls were bad.
Speaker 1: Then you need basically know that we really don't know
Speaker 1: the pressure and the intimidation. Well, we have reporters and
Speaker 1: spies in there. I have Ammy Harrowitz in there for
Speaker 1: a spy in there for a day, all right, But
Speaker 1: there's nothing wrong with sending US marshalls a federal president
Speaker 1: to observe the situation. You don't want to wake U,
Speaker 1: you don't want a Ruby Ridge, I don't want any
Speaker 1: of that. But I think that President Trump has got
Speaker 1: to run and he can start this in August. I
Speaker 1: wouldn't do it now. You don't want to inflame now,
Speaker 1: but he's got to run on Is this the kind
Speaker 1: of country you want? And then show pictures of Seattle.
Speaker 1: Here's the problem. Let's let's say all hell breaks loose. Bill.
Speaker 1: By the way, we've seen all hell break loose in
Speaker 1: recent days, and it's not pretty. And let's say that
Speaker 1: they throw rocks, bottles, bricks at Molotov cocktails. Then the
Speaker 1: hundred is going to become a thousand to two thousand,
Speaker 1: and there's no way that's ever gonna end. It's never
Speaker 1: gonna look good. The optics will be terrible, and then
Speaker 1: you got the possibility of a worst case scenario. Now
Speaker 1: it may come to that, but from my perspective, that's
Speaker 1: the that's the governor of Washington's job, in the mayor's job.
Speaker 1: The President keeps offering the help. He says, I'll help you,
Speaker 1: you can run it. I'll give you the backup, the
Speaker 1: support that you need when you're ready. They don't want
Speaker 1: any help, Bill, And they elected these guys. I guess
Speaker 1: that's what they want out in liberal land, La La land.
Speaker 1: Out there, they want, you know, anarchists to take over
Speaker 1: city streets. I have considered your point of view, and
Speaker 1: you rejected on TV and radio. I know I did.
Speaker 1: I'm not I'm not mocking you. I thought that it
Speaker 1: a lot. Yeah. I think the American people at this
Speaker 1: point are looking for leadership. I think if the President
Speaker 1: got on and said I'm gonna send in hundred marshals
Speaker 1: to make sure that anyone who feels threatened or anybody's
Speaker 1: rights who are being violated in the anarchy zone have
Speaker 1: to support, I think that would do them a lot
Speaker 1: of good. You don't go in with tanks or gas
Speaker 1: or anything like that. You just create a presence that
Speaker 1: shows leadership. And that's what I will. I'm not where
Speaker 1: you are. Probably that is probably going to happen next.
Speaker 1: If I had to give my best guess, I don't
Speaker 1: have any insider information. I think that is sober thought,
Speaker 1: well thought out. And but you have another problem though,
Speaker 1: and that is the mayor doesn't want them. The governor
Speaker 1: doesn't want them, the anarchists don't. Well, I got it.
Speaker 1: Now here's the all right. So the bottles get thrown,
Speaker 1: the Molotov cocktails get thrown, the bricks and rocks get thrown.
Speaker 1: It's gonna be. You can't send a hundred guys in
Speaker 1: without you know, five thousand behind them. If anybody does that,
Speaker 1: them as withdraw. All right. Video is taken of course, Um,
Speaker 1: they don't confront. They just withdraw and then the people.
Speaker 1: And it's in a country. See who the anarchists really are.
Speaker 1: Look based on all of the reporting, I'm like you,
Speaker 1: I'm paying very close attention the residents. Now we have
Speaker 1: one resident, Shelby Telcott at the at the Daily Caller
Speaker 1: interviewed a business owner. You're not too happy, and I
Speaker 1: would imagine that there's probably legal liability for the city
Speaker 1: and for the state, and that will work itself out
Speaker 1: through the courts. I think there's going to come a
Speaker 1: moment for your idea. I'm not quite there yet. It's
Speaker 1: well thought out. I appreciate it, but it also is
Speaker 1: predicated on one assumption. I think that you think that
Speaker 1: the people in the zone will allow it. I have
Speaker 1: a feeling that it has the potential to be a
Speaker 1: lit fuse. Do you know the city of Seattle, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I know, you've been there, of course, I have been
Speaker 1: there many time. Okay, so the six block area that
Speaker 1: they are occupying does comprise some residences and a lot
Speaker 1: of businesses. All right. My contention is that many, perhaps most,
Speaker 1: who are trapped there, don't want to be trapped there, correct,
Speaker 1: But they were allowed to get in and out. And
Speaker 1: I'm only giving you straight reporting that I have. And
Speaker 1: if we're in your neighborhood or my neighborhood, had any
Speaker 1: we wouldn't be putting it. We wouldn't be putting up
Speaker 1: with it. Putting up with it. I only can say,
Speaker 1: we wouldn't be living in Seattle, Bill, we wouldn't be
Speaker 1: welcome in Seattle. And by the way, we're not really
Speaker 1: welcome in New York either. Well, New York is another.
Speaker 1: I mean, what happened in Saint Patrick's Cathedral. I don't
Speaker 1: know how much time we have, but the district Attorney
Speaker 1: cy Vans, not prosecuting the people who desecrated the cathedral,
Speaker 1: said that is probably the worst thing I've ever seen.
Speaker 1: All Right, let's reverse to us real quick, because we
Speaker 1: don't have a lot of time. Let's say that the
Speaker 1: people that took over and are running the autonomous Zone
Speaker 1: or some conservative or radical right wing group as they
Speaker 1: call it, these are left wingers. What if it was that,
Speaker 1: what would happen now, Well, Insley would have the National
Speaker 1: guarding there exactly exactly. Well, everybody knows that. Everybody knows
Speaker 1: who Insley is. I mean, that's what I mean that
Speaker 1: in this next election, people's got to choose what kind
Speaker 1: of country you want. It's really stark. Now, you may
Speaker 1: not like Trump, but do you want Insley? Is that
Speaker 1: what you want? You know what I do in this book,
Speaker 1: and I'm going to send you an early copy, special
Speaker 1: Father's Day first edition, specially bound copies. Hannity dot Com. Bill,
Speaker 1: I'll give you yours for free. I give the history
Speaker 1: of how this great country is founded. I give a
Speaker 1: history of radicalism in this country. I give the complete
Speaker 1: twenty twenty democratic agenda. I go through socialism and their
Speaker 1: history of failure. I go through what is at stake
Speaker 1: between what they want on the left and what the
Speaker 1: radical party they've become, and all of Donald Trump's views
Speaker 1: and successes that he's had in his first term. I
Speaker 1: google through the the hoax that they put us through
Speaker 1: with Russia, the phony impeachment, trying to literally undo an election.
Speaker 1: And I go through, and that's why it's lived Free
Speaker 1: or die America in the world on the brink, Bill,
Speaker 1: this is this is not for me a game. I
Speaker 1: believe this tipping point. You promised that I could interview
Speaker 1: you about this book. You remember that I do very
Speaker 1: I don't know, as I drinking that day and I
Speaker 1: don't remember I really know, of course. Down all right,
Speaker 1: but I'm telling you Bill one hundred and thirty nine days, Bill,
Speaker 1: this great Republic is hanging in the balance. The choice
Speaker 1: cannot be anymore clear. I've said that and passed elections.
Speaker 1: It's nothing compared to this one. All right, Bill O'Reilly
Speaker 1: dot com. Thank you, Bill O'Riley. We'll continue. Kiss words
Speaker 1: are meaningless. He is lying to you, He is lying
Speaker 1: to himself. He is lying to the American people in
Speaker 1: Congress and the next President of the United States need
Speaker 1: to stand up to the billions and billions of dollars
Speaker 1: in Silicon Valley and hold these people, hold these billionaires
Speaker 1: accountable for their lies and for their undermining of American democracy.
Speaker 1: All right, News Roundup and Information Overload Hour, Joseph Scarborough
Speaker 1: going nuts against Mark Zuckerberg and Google and all the
Speaker 1: interesting details that have emerged surrounding this whole issue, and
Speaker 1: report that in fact, Google maybe financially blacklisting zero heads
Speaker 1: the Federalist site. Google to ban ads on the Federalist
Speaker 1: after NBC News raises concerns about the George Floyd protest
Speaker 1: well works for NBC News. They're looking to they're they're
Speaker 1: looking for them to basically censor content that they don't
Speaker 1: like or agree with. It's plenty of things I read
Speaker 1: about me every single day, Linda, A lot of stuff
Speaker 1: about me. I don't particularly like a lot of it's lying,
Speaker 1: but definitely don't agree with it. If you look. The
Speaker 1: bar is what the bar is? You know, Congress shall
Speaker 1: make no law as it relates to freedom of speech.
Speaker 1: Now we have libel laws, by the way, I like
Speaker 1: to see where the suit ultimately goes with our friend
Speaker 1: Lynn would probably you know him and Charles Harder by far,
Speaker 1: you know, standouts in terms of libel law Malice Times v.
Speaker 1: Sullivan Landmark case, which is, you know, it's a very
Speaker 1: high bar. If you're a public figure, they can pretty
Speaker 1: much say anything they want about you, just the way
Speaker 1: it is now. So it's interesting that it's NBC News,
Speaker 1: you know, apparently pushing according to foxnews dot Com article
Speaker 1: that they're pushing and now facing intense backlash for influencing
Speaker 1: Google to punish these two conservative news sites. Now we
Speaker 1: can also go through all the conspiracy theories of fake
Speaker 1: news CNN, right, we could do that and we can
Speaker 1: go through all the wrong reporting on Russia. You know
Speaker 1: what about those lies that damage this country immeasurable damage.
Speaker 1: Look what they put this country through. They ever admit
Speaker 1: they're wrong. No, Look at what they did to one kid,
Speaker 1: Nicolas Sandman. And they're paying that case. Because Nicolas sam Man,
Speaker 1: he's not a public figure, the bar is much lower.
Speaker 1: The lies that were told about this kid, the smears
Speaker 1: and the slander, all of that involved. I mean, it
Speaker 1: is like unbelievable anyway, So it's it's interesting now we
Speaker 1: dealt with this a long time. Well, it wasn't that
Speaker 1: long ago. It was May twenty eighth, I guess we
Speaker 1: dealt with it. And about a month ago and the
Speaker 1: President signed an executive order and he had Bill Barr,
Speaker 1: the Attorney General, in there. And as it relates to
Speaker 1: the executive order, fighting back against Silicon Valley with the
Speaker 1: President and censorship of conservatives, this is something now conservatives
Speaker 1: have had to deal with for a very long period
Speaker 1: of time. This is something conservatives deal with all the
Speaker 1: time as a matter of fact. And you know, on
Speaker 1: top of everything else, every single word we utter is
Speaker 1: being recorded in the hopes that one day that you know,
Speaker 1: some conservative will say one thing they don't like, they
Speaker 1: don't agree with, and instead of just letting the general
Speaker 1: public go out there and make their own decisions because people,
Speaker 1: I can't force people to listen. I want you to listen.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna try and do the best show I can
Speaker 1: every day, so you'll listen. I'm gonna put on the
Speaker 1: best TV show I possibly can so you will listen
Speaker 1: and watch. But I can't make anybody. You know, that's freedom.
Speaker 1: You have the freedom to choose. We have more choices
Speaker 1: now than ever. Netflix, You've got Hulu, you got Amazon, Prime,
Speaker 1: Prime Video, you got it all, Prime Movie, Prime Prime, this,
Speaker 1: that and everything. And you have all the social media
Speaker 1: content providers as well. YouTube. If you have a smart TV,
Speaker 1: you want to watch something on YouTube, you put it
Speaker 1: on your TV. It's that's simple. But there is a
Speaker 1: very important legal component to this, and that is the
Speaker 1: Communications Decency Act, and the Order interprets that key provision
Speaker 1: as not providing special protections for Silicon Valley titans like
Speaker 1: Facebook and Twitter and Google and the rest of them
Speaker 1: that are engaged in censorship. If you're just a pure
Speaker 1: content provider, you are protected in terms of libel. If
Speaker 1: in fact, somebody were to say something offensive that could
Speaker 1: in fact be interpreted as libel. In other words, you
Speaker 1: have that protection by your government. They have that protection. Now,
Speaker 1: if you're going to become an editor and then editorially,
Speaker 1: then then then every all bets are off at that point.
Speaker 1: You know what, if you're not going to be a
Speaker 1: pure content provider and let people post freely, well then
Speaker 1: and if you don't become an editor, okay, you won't
Speaker 1: have the liability. Once you become an editor, well then
Speaker 1: that liability that you have, the protections are gone. And
Speaker 1: by the way, this first happened with Twitter when they
Speaker 1: took the unprecedented, unprecedented steps of fact checking the president's
Speaker 1: tweets and now they're deleting this conservative emails account, and
Speaker 1: it goes on and on and on. You had a
Speaker 1: Twitter employee linking to the platform the fact checking came
Speaker 1: from where the Washington Post they hate the president, fake news, CNN,
Speaker 1: they hate the president. You know. So you know, I
Speaker 1: actually put this on TV and on radio. I tweeted
Speaker 1: it out to at Jack or we said on air,
Speaker 1: at Jack, that's your fact checker, the Washington Post, fake news, CNN?
Speaker 1: Does that? Are they people that should have a voice
Speaker 1: in deciding how to target a president's Twitter page. Well,
Speaker 1: now you're no longer just a content provider because you're
Speaker 1: deciding what's on there. There's a lot of stuff I
Speaker 1: don't like that I see about me on social media.
Speaker 1: Guess what, too bad. I believe in freedom. I believe
Speaker 1: in freedom of speech, liberty, and people say lies about
Speaker 1: me too. Not much I can do about it now
Speaker 1: when people are warned and people are given the truth.
Speaker 1: New York Toilet Paper Times is the case in point.
Speaker 1: There's going to be a landmark case, Sarah Palin. Remember
Speaker 1: the whole thing targeted districts and what they said at
Speaker 1: the time. Yeah, that hopefully we'll go to trial, and
Speaker 1: I want to see what where that turns out. I
Speaker 1: am paying very close attention to all of that. So
Speaker 1: if you're going to take the role of fact checking,
Speaker 1: then you also take on the liability and the responsibility.
Speaker 1: And you may not want to use fake news CNN
Speaker 1: and MSDNC in the New York Toilet Paper Times and
Speaker 1: Washington Posts as your fact checkers because they have agendas.
Speaker 1: At Jack should know this. We met at Jack dude.
Speaker 1: You ever, by the way, talk to him, Linda, Ah,
Speaker 1: he seems to be unavailable, you know though, so your
Speaker 1: connection is over. I wouldn't say that it's over. I
Speaker 1: would just say that we're going through an interesting phase
Speaker 1: in our relationship. But it's But remember NBC now, and
Speaker 1: this is what I have. But Joe Scarborough is asking
Speaker 1: here is for them to censor speech he doesn't like. Now,
Speaker 1: to me, it's a little bit of a joke. I
Speaker 1: have nothing against Joe Scarborough. He can say whatever he wants.
Speaker 1: It's not the point. But if you're gonna edit people's opinions,
Speaker 1: you no longer get the liability protection that I've been
Speaker 1: talking about here, the Decency Act protection, the Communications Decency
Speaker 1: Act protection, because now you're an editor. Now you are
Speaker 1: deciding you're not just a content provider, or you're not
Speaker 1: just a place where you allow people to speak freely.
Speaker 1: You're editing that speech. Okay, that means that's a whole
Speaker 1: different ballgame, and the liability is real by the way,
Speaker 1: I eviscerate, Oh it Live free or die, Linda, that
Speaker 1: whole chapter. I think it's what chapter seven. The medium
Speaker 1: mob enemy of the people, they hate Trump media mob.
Speaker 1: That's chapter seven. I eviscerate them. I can't wait for
Speaker 1: August fourth. We're gonna get out on the road to
Speaker 1: again as well. We're gonna have some fun with this.
Speaker 1: But more importantly, you know what, the mob deserves everything
Speaker 1: I'm going to I do throw at them because they
Speaker 1: are so irresponsible, they're so reckless. They tell so many lies,
Speaker 1: they smear so many people. There's such such an agenda driven.
Speaker 1: It's a fourth estate, and they abuse their power, frankly,
Speaker 1: with no accountability, no responsibility. You know what, you know,
Speaker 1: good thing, Nicolas Sandman. I can't wait to see this
Speaker 1: kid become a billionaire. And that's what's gonna happen. But
Speaker 1: they won't disclose how much of we out a private settlement.
Speaker 1: That's fine, to agree to a private settlement. You're gonna
Speaker 1: pay through the nose. Great good for Nicholas Sandman. He
Speaker 1: deserved it. He deserves so much better. And by the way,
Speaker 1: Father's Day is this Sunday. If you want to get
Speaker 1: a specially bound first edition copy Live for Your Die
Speaker 1: America and the world on the brink, Live for Your
Speaker 1: America dies in Latin for Dad, print out a beautiful
Speaker 1: gift certificate. He gets gets it first. Week delivery and
Speaker 1: especially bound edition first edition copy Hannity dot com for
Speaker 1: that Amazon dot com if you just want to order
Speaker 1: it early and get a good discount. All right, let's
Speaker 1: go to our phones here. Let's say hi to Cheryl
Speaker 1: and Virginia. Cheryl, Hi, how are you glad you called? Hi? Sean?
Speaker 1: How are you so good to talk to you? It's
Speaker 1: good to talk to you. What's going on? Thank you? Yes?
Speaker 1: My first question is why is in the Seattle FBI
Speaker 1: getting involved shutting down CHAZ when they've got armed BLM
Speaker 1: and ANTIFA members there blocking entrance into their zone. And second,
Speaker 1: can the citizens of Seattle sue the mayor and other
Speaker 1: city officials for obstructing access and emergency services to that area?
Speaker 1: I absolutely if I was a homeowner, was a store owner,
Speaker 1: and my business was under siege and with reckless disregard
Speaker 1: for the law, they did not uphold the oaths of
Speaker 1: their office and their responsibility to the citizenry. I absolutely
Speaker 1: see a case there where they are financially, legally liable
Speaker 1: and responsible. I'd loved and by the way, that's going
Speaker 1: to happen. And by the way, the taxpayers of Washington,
Speaker 1: taxpayers in Seattle Yeah, they're going to be the ones
Speaker 1: that end up paying whatever the settlement is. And depending
Speaker 1: on how much insurance they have, we'll see what that
Speaker 1: all comes down to. How would you feel if it
Speaker 1: was your business, right, I'd sue I would too. I
Speaker 1: can't blame people FBI And what about FBI involvement? Can
Speaker 1: they not get involved? Yes, the President has full constitutional
Speaker 1: authority to go in under the Insurrection Act of eighteen
Speaker 1: oh seven. He can go in, he can clean it up,
Speaker 1: and he can get it done. But you know what,
Speaker 1: I don't think he should. I mean, the president keeps offering, Hell,
Speaker 1: it's the governor's job. It's the mayor's job. The mayor's
Speaker 1: eating and inventing these the anarchists. The mayor's saying something
Speaker 1: that's not true, that it's one big street festival, that
Speaker 1: it is a summer of love, and in the autonomous
Speaker 1: chop Zone, chaz whatever they want to call it, on
Speaker 1: any given day, in spaghetti pot luck dinners. And you
Speaker 1: know what, it's funny because fake news CNN, M conspiracy
Speaker 1: tv MSDNC reporting inside the autonomy autonomous zone, and while
Speaker 1: they're inside there, they're saying, oh no, it's like a
Speaker 1: festival atmosphere using the same words as they always do.
Speaker 1: Then no originality whatsoever. It's one big liberal socialist talking point.
Speaker 1: And while they're saying it, the people inside the zone
Speaker 1: and say, no, it's not this isn't a festival. It's hilarious.
Speaker 1: They're getting beaten down, you know, right on live television.
Speaker 1: I showed some of that last night. It's hilarious actually. Anyway,
Speaker 1: thanks Cheryl, Yeah, appreciate it. Say hi to Scott in
Speaker 1: New Jersey. Scott, you're on the Sean Hannity Show. Hey, Sean,
Speaker 1: how you doing a quick question? I was watching the
Speaker 1: TV this morning and I'm one of your competitors channels.
Speaker 1: They were talking to the CEO of General Motors Corporation
Speaker 1: and she was talking about basically creating all these inclusivity
Speaker 1: and diversity boards and all this stuff. Right, And a
Speaker 1: lot of these companies are coming out and saying this, right,
Speaker 1: so civil rights movement happened almost sixty years ago, right,
Speaker 1: shouldn't the boards and the CEO is the executives like
Speaker 1: they're taking a reactive approach, is what it sounds like.
Speaker 1: Shouldn't they be stripping and cleaning all these boards out
Speaker 1: and all these CEOs that are taking a reactive approach
Speaker 1: because these solutions and these problems should have been solved
Speaker 1: twenty or thirty years ago. So like that's my big question,
Speaker 1: Like what are they going to do about that? And
Speaker 1: how are these executives taking such a reactive approach? Is
Speaker 1: something that should have been in their bylaws and corporate
Speaker 1: policies years ago. Look, every corporation, it's easy for us,
Speaker 1: I would argue, you know, to say they should be
Speaker 1: focused on this, this, this, and this. I don't care
Speaker 1: what the business is. You're usually everybody I know in
Speaker 1: business gulfs water, if that makes sense. I'm gulden Water
Speaker 1: every day, all days, a fire hose in my throat,
Speaker 1: put you know, trying to get all the information, news,
Speaker 1: information shows together, and you know, you just don't usually
Speaker 1: have the time to get to a lot of these
Speaker 1: other things. And you know, I've been blessed because I've
Speaker 1: hired so many good people around me, and that makes
Speaker 1: a big difference. And I always let everybody do their job.
Speaker 1: I'm not a micromanager type of boss. And you know,
Speaker 1: but in the end, when sometimes problems, you know, or
Speaker 1: once they're illuminated, once they've become a problem, then you
Speaker 1: have to give the attention that is due to it.
Speaker 1: What should people be more proactive at times on a
Speaker 1: lot of issues? Absolutely, quality controls, safety issues, personnel matters.
Speaker 1: All of this stuff has to be dealt with. It's complicated,
Speaker 1: and you have all the government regulations, and you have
Speaker 1: all the accounting and taxation that you got to deal
Speaker 1: with in any business. It's you know, I'm not disagreeing.
Speaker 1: You got to focus on people too, and the people
Speaker 1: that work for you and your customer, and do it simultaneously,
Speaker 1: and do it under that an environment which is also
Speaker 1: more competitive in a lot of industries than ever before.
Speaker 1: It's it's it's not an easy answer, but we can
Speaker 1: get it right. You always want to become more perfect.
Speaker 1: That's how I love a more perfect union for example.
Speaker 1: All right, that's gonna wrap things up for today. We've
Speaker 1: got a lot of news to cover. By the way,
Speaker 1: the President will be on tonight on Hannity nine Eastern
Speaker 1: on the Fox News Channel. President Trump saying absolutely Kaepernick,
Speaker 1: if he can play in the NFL, should be playing
Speaker 1: in the NFL. That surprised people will have the charges
Speaker 1: in the Atlanta case. Lindsay Graham, Dan Bongino, Horaldo, Leo
Speaker 1: and Larry and President Trump also all coming up Hannity
Speaker 1: exclusively tonight nine Eastern Box News see you tonight back
Speaker 1: here tomorrow, As always say, DVR, thanks for being with us,