Speaker 1: Well, we have come in.
Speaker 2: To your.
Speaker 1: Going away against SaaS and saying you a conscious cell.
Speaker 1: Will be dire Adellan.
Speaker 3: And if you want a little bang ya come along
Speaker 3: si Key, turning up documents and witnesses showing that the
Speaker 3: President wasn't involved, never discussed these business dealings and did
Speaker 3: nothing wrong. There's been zero evidence showing showing otherwise.
Speaker 4: I make decisions in this office based on the facts
Speaker 4: and the law.
Speaker 1: The law is completely nonpartisan. It's excessive, and I think
Speaker 1: it's also dangerous, and it is sort of the Jackson
Speaker 1: Pollock school of prosecution. She threw it all against the canvas.
Speaker 1: Frado is back in style. Welcome to the revolution.
Speaker 4: Were coming.
Speaker 3: To your.
Speaker 1: Going away, I get Salas and saying you a conscious cell.
Speaker 1: The New Sean Hennity Show more im the scenes information
Speaker 1: on freaking news and more bold inspired solutions for America.
Speaker 1: All right, our two Sean Hannity Show. Thank you for
Speaker 1: being with us E. One hundred and ninety four one Sean,
Speaker 1: if you want to be a part of the program.
Speaker 1: He is the chairman of the very powerful, very important,
Speaker 1: and very productive House Oversight Accountability Committee. James Comer is
Speaker 1: with US Congressman Great to have you back.
Speaker 2: How are you, sir, I'm well, thanks for having me on.
Speaker 1: John all right, you have sent a letter now to
Speaker 1: the National Archives to turn over emails where Joe Biden
Speaker 1: disguised his identity and apparently had a lot of while
Speaker 1: he was Vice president email accounts under pseudonyms. Is that
Speaker 1: one hundred percent confirmed? You know that's from him?
Speaker 2: We're we're ninety nine percent sure that that trick, Shawn,
Speaker 2: and they're not eyeing it and they're not sending web
Speaker 2: ads attacking me. So I'm going to go out and
Speaker 2: limb and say we're ninety nine point nine percent sure
Speaker 2: that that's right. It's very odd behavior, but nonetheless it's
Speaker 2: not unprecedented to have fake names. But with respect to
Speaker 2: what we found with this particular email, his son was
Speaker 2: blind copied on it. And that's a very serious concern
Speaker 2: because the email pertains to Barisma, It pertains to what
Speaker 2: we all believe is a quid pro quo with respect
Speaker 2: to Joe Biden holding up four and eight in exchange
Speaker 2: for Ukraine firing the prosecutor who is investigating his son
Speaker 2: for corruption. And it shows that the White House once
Speaker 2: again lied about saying there was a wall between the
Speaker 2: president and his son in their shady business games.
Speaker 1: Well, we know all of that is true. I think
Speaker 1: the most evidence is on the Ukraine case, but not
Speaker 1: in a very close second would be the Chinese Energy conglomerate.
Speaker 1: And I think why those two deals in particular pertinent
Speaker 1: is well, there's two admissions that we now know about
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden. He admitted he was an addict during the
Speaker 1: time that these deals were happening, and it was in
Speaker 1: the energy sector with CEFC, connected obviously to the Chinese
Speaker 1: Communist Party. And that's the what's App message that said
Speaker 1: I'm sitting here with my father and then to me
Speaker 1: the rest of the message was a complete shakedown. Have
Speaker 1: you completely confirmed and corroborated? After that WhatsApp message, within
Speaker 1: what about a week, five million dollars made it into
Speaker 1: the Biden family coffers.
Speaker 2: Yes, something like that. There was a big wire within
Speaker 2: a week of that message. I think within the next
Speaker 2: day or two there was one hundred thousand dollar wire,
Speaker 2: and then a few days after that was a several
Speaker 2: million dollar wire. So yes, once the once Hunter Biden
Speaker 2: sent that What's App message to the Chinese foreign national,
Speaker 2: then in the money started transferring immediately.
Speaker 1: So let's go back to Barisma for just a second here,
Speaker 1: because again Hunter's admission no experience and energy, oil gas
Speaker 1: or Ukraine and yet so we have this need DC
Speaker 1: help message. This is correct me if I'm wrong on
Speaker 1: the date December fourth, twenty fifteen, correct, correct, okay, one
Speaker 1: of the things that you are looking for, it was
Speaker 1: what five days after that December ninth of twenty fifteen. Again,
Speaker 1: correct me if I'm wrong that Joe Biden gave a
Speaker 1: speech to the Ukrainian parliament, Is that true, sir?
Speaker 2: That is true.
Speaker 1: In that speech, did Joe Biden begin the process of
Speaker 1: demonizing Victor Shokun, the prosecutor investigating Barisma that was paying
Speaker 1: his son who had no experience and was an admitted
Speaker 1: addict at the time. In that speech, did he mention
Speaker 1: Victor Shokun, Yes, sir. And what did he say say
Speaker 1: about mister Chokun the prosecutor in Ukraine?
Speaker 2: Well, he applies that he was corrupt and that that
Speaker 2: was one of the reasons that the United States had
Speaker 2: concerns about assisting Ukraine and because they had a you know, corruption,
Speaker 2: and he cited that prosecutor joking as a as.
Speaker 1: A perfect example, what is the date when Joe Biden said,
Speaker 1: and he was bragging about he leveraged a billion taxpayer
Speaker 1: dollars to fire the prosecutor and oh you only got
Speaker 1: about six hours and son of a bee, they did it,
Speaker 1: which the net result was Ukraine got a billion dollars
Speaker 1: in loan guarantees. But in terms of his own personal family,
Speaker 1: that that paved the way for Hunter, with no experience,
Speaker 1: to continue to be paid massive amounts of money from Barisma,
Speaker 1: of which he still continued to stand on that board.
Speaker 1: Is that correct, sir?
Speaker 2: That is correct? And remember how long ago?
Speaker 1: How long after that speech did that firing take place?
Speaker 2: It was days after that speech. I mean, he wasn't
Speaker 2: wasn't long at all. I don't have the exact day,
Speaker 2: but it wasn't long at all.
Speaker 1: I mean, So let me go through that. So on
Speaker 1: the on the fourth of December twenty fifteen, his son
Speaker 1: Hunter is in Dubai. He's with Paris my executives. Correct, Yes,
Speaker 1: they called Joe Biden on the phone while they're in Dubai. Correct.
Speaker 2: Correct.
Speaker 1: We know that Parisma executives had sent multiple messages basically
Speaker 1: the same message, need DC help. Is that correct?
Speaker 2: That is correct.
Speaker 1: Five days after the phone call that Joe got on
Speaker 1: with Perism execs and Hunter, he gives a speech where
Speaker 1: he begins publicly now trashing the prosecutor investigating Borisma. Is
Speaker 1: that correct, sir?
Speaker 2: That is correct?
Speaker 1: And then and and shortly thereafter is when he leveraged
Speaker 1: the billion dollars to fire the prosecutor, son of the bee.
Speaker 1: They fired him, and Hunter continued to get paid for
Speaker 1: some time thereafter, as a matter of fact, two years.
Speaker 1: If I'm not mistaken, that is correct. Wow.
Speaker 2: And remember, Sean, there's also that form that FBI form
Speaker 2: that center Grassley.
Speaker 1: And I release the ten twenty three form.
Speaker 2: The ten twenty three form that alleges that the owner
Speaker 2: of Risma paid Hunter Biden and Joe Biden five million
Speaker 2: dollars each and with Joe Biden, he did it in
Speaker 2: a way that that investigators would take ten years finding
Speaker 2: the money. They went through so many different banks. That
Speaker 2: is a pattern everything we're seeing.
Speaker 1: Let me go through this because I want to be
Speaker 1: very clear. In that ten twenty three form, you have
Speaker 1: a credible FBI source. How do we know they're credible?
Speaker 1: Isn't it true the FBI had paid this source in
Speaker 1: the past hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Speaker 2: Yes, the FBI told me this was one of their
Speaker 2: most credible, respected sources, and they paid him over two
Speaker 2: hundred thousand dollars. Throughout the time, they had had a
Speaker 2: relationship with him, and they had used his testimony in
Speaker 2: cases that they had in one.
Speaker 1: With And in this in this ten twenty three form,
Speaker 1: he outlines a conversation that he had with the CEO
Speaker 1: of Barisma, who said that he thought Hunter was stupid
Speaker 1: and his dog was smarter, and that he didn't want
Speaker 1: to pay the Bidens, but he paid them five million
Speaker 1: dollars each, five million for one Biden, five million for
Speaker 1: another Biden. And didn't he also say there that and
Speaker 1: it would take ten years for anybody to figure out
Speaker 1: how I paid them the money?
Speaker 2: Yes, which is you know what we're seeing every day
Speaker 2: with all these different shell companies and bank accounts and
Speaker 2: bank violations.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's the walls are closing in here now. Now.
Speaker 1: One other point on these pseudonyms, because you're asking the
Speaker 1: National Archives to hand over these emails and robin Ware
Speaker 1: and j Rbware, some of the pseudonyms and accounts. Robert L.
Speaker 1: Peters is one other address, and you know he was
Speaker 1: Obama's second in command and that his aide John Flynn. Now,
Speaker 1: what weren't some of these emails under pseudonym's copies of
Speaker 1: his speech that he was going to give to the
Speaker 1: Ukrainian parliament sent I guess for approval to his son Hunter.
Speaker 2: That's what it appears to be, Sean.
Speaker 1: And it's all in this same time period.
Speaker 2: It's all in the same time period. I mean, you've
Speaker 2: got the evidence. We know he fired the prosecutor because
Speaker 2: Joe Biden did an interview and bragged on it. Well,
Speaker 2: you said, son of a bee, they fired him, you
Speaker 2: know that he said that. That's Joe Biden's own words.
Speaker 2: We have testimony from Devin Archer, who was also on
Speaker 2: the Barisma board with Hunter Biden, that said he saw
Speaker 2: the owners of Barisma We's Hunter Biden and say he
Speaker 2: needed to call Washington to get help from this prosecutor
Speaker 2: who was giving them all sorts of trouble investigating them
Speaker 2: for fraud. Someone on the BURISHMA board testify that Devon
Speaker 2: Archer in our transcribed interview. So now we find that
Speaker 2: there were emails to fake names pertaining to what he
Speaker 2: was going to do when he went to Ukraine and
Speaker 2: they were blind copying Hunter Biden on there. Why would
Speaker 2: they do that. They've always used the excuse from day one. Well,
Speaker 2: Hunter Biden not in the government. Hunter Biden doesn't have
Speaker 2: anything to do with the government. He was just a
Speaker 2: drug addict. Well what's he doing being included in all this?
Speaker 1: But he didn't know that his son was in business
Speaker 1: with Beris Moore. I never once spoke to my son, Hunter,
Speaker 1: my brother, or anybody for that matter, he said in
Speaker 1: numerous times as candidate and as president. Let me move
Speaker 1: on to the issue of this plea deal, the sweetheart
Speaker 1: plea deal. Now, it's true that mister Weiss's office then
Speaker 1: the the investigator into this, but not special counsel at
Speaker 1: that point. Didn't his office recommend felony charges in terms
Speaker 1: of IRS violations? Is that true?
Speaker 2: That's what the IRS whistleblower said, Yes.
Speaker 1: And didn't. The i r S whistleblowers also said that
Speaker 1: pressure from above prevented them from doing their job.
Speaker 2: Yes, they testified that and said that they felt like
Speaker 2: their investigation of Hunter Biden was going to lead directly
Speaker 2: to Joe Biden, and that's when they were told to
Speaker 2: stand down, And.
Speaker 1: Didn't your committee discover that the FBI tipped off the
Speaker 1: Biden family about a surprise interview that they were going
Speaker 1: to have with Hunter.
Speaker 2: Yes, they tipped off both Hunter Biden. They tipped off
Speaker 2: Joe Biden, and they tipped off the transition team. Why
Speaker 2: the transition team would have anything to do with this,
Speaker 2: But this was at the time when Joe Biden was,
Speaker 2: you know, in the tree didition period between winning the
Speaker 2: election and taking office.
Speaker 1: Didn't those irs whistleblowers say that mister Weiss, has now
Speaker 1: since been appointed special counsel in this case, had told
Speaker 1: them with certainty that he did not have the authority
Speaker 1: to pursue investigations in other states, other jurisdictions like DC
Speaker 1: and California, and that they took contemporary his notes as
Speaker 1: he was saying it.
Speaker 2: Yes, they did, And he said that he had requested
Speaker 2: special counsel status and was denied, and that he wanted
Speaker 2: to prosecute in other states but wasn't allowed because it
Speaker 2: wasn't in his jurisdiction. Only Delaware was in his reistiction.
Speaker 1: And doesn't that contradict the testimony of the Attorney General
Speaker 1: Mary Garland.
Speaker 2: Absolutely one of those two individuals is line, and I
Speaker 2: think I know which one.
Speaker 1: But yet, was that testimony given under oath?
Speaker 2: Yes, regardless whether it's under oaths or not, if you
Speaker 2: lie to Congress, it's a pelaty. And but yes, Merrick Garland.
Speaker 1: Did mister Weiss ever say the same thing to Congress
Speaker 1: that he that he had the authority?
Speaker 2: We haven't had Wiss in front of Congress yet, and
Speaker 2: that's why I think one of the reasons they appointed
Speaker 2: a special council. Jordan and I had already announced we
Speaker 2: were going to try to bring him in and question him,
Speaker 2: and then that's when they and.
Speaker 1: They signed off on it for September, didn't they? Yes, Yes,
Speaker 1: And then now he's a special council. So if you
Speaker 1: do bring him in, why do I guess every answer
Speaker 1: is going to be, as you know, Congressman, this is
Speaker 1: an issue under investigation, and I'm not allowed to comment
Speaker 1: on an ongoing investigation. Is that going to be the
Speaker 1: likely answer?
Speaker 2: I would bend a lot of money on the dice
Speaker 2: table that that would be.
Speaker 1: His answer, and that that would probably be Merrick Garland's answer.
Speaker 2: To Yeah, yeah, I doubt we see Merrick Garland again.
Speaker 1: But yes, you doubt you ever see him again. Well,
Speaker 1: I would think that the oversight committee there ought to
Speaker 1: be cooperate from the You know, you should have gotten
Speaker 1: suspicious activity reports, you should have gotten the ten twenty
Speaker 1: three form. You shouldn't have had the fight for all
Speaker 1: of this. And I assume now you'll be in a
Speaker 1: fight with the National Archives and you might get something
Speaker 1: after you threaten them with contempt of Congress charges. So
Speaker 1: we now have a situation where where Merrick Garland, to
Speaker 1: protect what he said, has now given the authority. But
Speaker 1: isn't this guy, mister Weiss, the same guy that offered
Speaker 1: the sweetheart deal and buried within the gun provision diversion
Speaker 1: program with the two misdemeanor tax charges. Isn't this the
Speaker 1: same Weiss that let the statute of limitations run on
Speaker 1: tax issues that Hunter had not paid tax on for
Speaker 1: certain years. And isn't it the same guy that offered
Speaker 1: the sweetheart deal slap on a wrist with buried deep
Speaker 1: within the gun provision diversion aspect of it, that said
Speaker 1: he would have full immunity from any other prosecution.
Speaker 2: Isn't that the same guy, same guy he let the
Speaker 2: statute of limitation out on a bunch of tax evasion
Speaker 2: crimes as well as he had hidden in the plea
Speaker 2: deal blanket immunity, which means, I mean he could commit
Speaker 2: a crime to Mora and probably couldn't be prosecuted, much
Speaker 2: less all the crimes he committed in the past two weeks.
Speaker 2: After that, he gets appointed special counsel after he gets
Speaker 2: rejected and called out by judge or offering an unprecedented
Speaker 2: sweetheart plea deal with blanket immunity. Now he's supposed to
Speaker 2: be the special counsel in charge of the investigation.
Speaker 1: Is America now currently looking at the real possibility that
Speaker 1: the President of the United States has compromised in terms
Speaker 1: of his activities, knowledge actions, that he compromised in terms
Speaker 1: of having his actions enrich his own private family from
Speaker 1: foreign entities, including hostile regimes, geopolitical foes of the United
Speaker 1: States of America. Is that what we're what we're looking
Speaker 1: at as a country.
Speaker 2: I fear that That's why I wanted to lead this investigation,
Speaker 2: and I believe the evidence every day points to that
Speaker 2: concern that this president's compromised. They cannot explain what their
Speaker 2: family did. Yeah received the twenty one million dollars that
Speaker 2: we've we've identified thus far, and we really haven't gone
Speaker 2: in depth yet on China, and that's something we hope
Speaker 2: to do in September.
Speaker 1: You've identified eight and a half million dollars though from
Speaker 1: China in terms of payments. Now, what do you have
Speaker 1: any reaction to Ian Sam's in the White House Counsel's
Speaker 1: Office that has been very mean to you in his comments.
Speaker 2: John Ian Sam's. You know, he's a guy that looks
Speaker 2: to me like he spent his whole high school career
Speaker 2: stuffed in the locker because he was a smart elect
Speaker 2: and you know, now he's out and got a little
Speaker 2: power and he just always you know, just picking on
Speaker 2: me and tweeting against me and everything, and he's getting
Speaker 2: paid by the taxpayers to do it. Look, I don't
Speaker 2: pay any attention. Then. I think it says a lot
Speaker 2: about Joe Biden that he has a little guy like
Speaker 2: Ian Sam's come out and just lie from the podium.
Speaker 2: Everything that we've proven is backed up. Everything that I
Speaker 2: have talked about has been backed up by Oh.
Speaker 1: I think they're responding because I think you hit a
Speaker 1: lot of nerves here and the walls are closing in
Speaker 1: James Comer Chairman House Government Oversight Committee, Sir, thank you
Speaker 1: for your time, and we're going to update all this
Speaker 1: tonight with you on Hannity. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 1: We appreciate it.
Speaker 2: Look forward to it.
Speaker 4: John.
Speaker 1: Thanks eight hundred ninety four one, Shawn. As we continue,
Speaker 1: let me come back the great one, Mark Levin straight ahead.
Speaker 1: You can't always believe what the other side claims. That's
Speaker 1: why there's the Sean Hannity Show. I twenty five till
Speaker 1: the top of the hour. Thank you for being with us.
Speaker 1: I want to remind you about our friends at lone
Speaker 1: Star Transfer. If you have a timeshare, well you know
Speaker 1: what's happened in recent years. It's almost impossible now to
Speaker 1: book your own time share and most owners they're shocked
Speaker 1: to learn that their timeshare is now available to the public.
Speaker 1: That limits their availability and booking options. Also, many owners
Speaker 1: reaching out upset their yearly dues have nearly doubled yet
Speaker 1: again during this maintenance fee season. I got a family
Speaker 1: owned business, wonderful wonderful people. For over a decade they
Speaker 1: have been helping tens of thousands of people legally and
Speaker 1: permanently get out of the never ending timeshare fees. They
Speaker 1: have an A plus rating from the Better Business Bureau,
Speaker 1: hundreds and hundreds of five star testimonials. Their clients do
Speaker 1: know lone star Transfer dot Com is the only company
Speaker 1: that they can trust, the only one I trust. Wonderful people.
Speaker 1: Lone Star Transfer will guarantee the release of all liability
Speaker 1: to your time share in writing and in a specific timeframe.
Speaker 1: Aw doy like that. They'll give a free, no obligation consultation.
Speaker 1: They'll take your call now eight three three five nine
Speaker 1: four zero zero seven five eight three to three. I
Speaker 1: have nine four zero zero seven five. Check them out
Speaker 1: online at lone star transfer dot Com. I call him
Speaker 1: the great one, Thank me, God, bless us. How am
Speaker 1: I Mark Levin for a reason? And he doesn't know
Speaker 1: that I do this. But when we do the audience shows,
Speaker 1: you know, part of before the show, I usually go
Speaker 1: out and say hi to people, and you know, I
Speaker 1: do my imitations of Clinton. I do as just the
Speaker 1: number of people that I do. Marlon Brando talk about
Speaker 1: how much we miss Rush, Sean Nhannity and Mark Levin,
Speaker 1: and you know what, and you know, it's amazing the
Speaker 1: impact he's had on all of us. And then I
Speaker 1: do Mark Levin. And first question I always ask any
Speaker 1: Mark Levin fans here the crowd goes wild, absolutely wild.
Speaker 1: And I said the great things. If you're friends with
Speaker 1: Mark Levin, you get two things that you never would
Speaker 1: expect if you're one of his best friends, which I am.
Speaker 1: And one is his mind is encyclopedic. He's like chat
Speaker 1: GPT when it comes to all issues involving our constitution. Hey, Mark,
Speaker 1: give me a little more detail on the speech and
Speaker 1: debate clause in the Constitution. And I already told you
Speaker 1: that you know, and then he'll give it to me.
Speaker 1: Just spit it out in second I'm all right, thank you,
Speaker 1: I forgot. And also, you know, he's like a wake
Speaker 1: up call, calls me in the morning. Did you read this,
Speaker 1: Adam Schiff? And you don't know when I do what
Speaker 1: people seem to laugh. He's got And I have now
Speaker 1: my own copy of this, a book that everybody in
Speaker 1: this country is going to need to read, and it's
Speaker 1: coming out very soon. If you want a first print edition,
Speaker 1: I strongly suggest you go to Amazon dot com order
Speaker 1: it right now. I have my first print edition, and
Speaker 1: or Hannity dot Com. It'll be I'll tell you when
Speaker 1: it's in bookstores, it's going to be soon, and it's
Speaker 1: called the Democratic Party Hates America. Now. The reason I
Speaker 1: wanted to have Mark on today was kind of a
Speaker 1: review that. But more importantly, he put on Twitter I
Speaker 1: guess formerly known as Twitter now x that he believes
Speaker 1: as a constitutional attorney that in fact President Trump could
Speaker 1: pardon himself from the Georgia charges if he's elected president. Uh.
Speaker 1: But I call him the great one for the for
Speaker 1: a reason. How am I thank us? Thank thank me?
Speaker 1: Glad you hear my friend? What's going on?
Speaker 2: Oh?
Speaker 4: You're great? Thanks? I want to walk through this very By.
Speaker 1: The way, do you have no response at all to
Speaker 1: the fact that you get like the loudest response when
Speaker 1: I when I kind of try to do you a
Speaker 1: little bit, You don't respond to that at all.
Speaker 4: What do you want me to say?
Speaker 1: They thank me? I am blessed, You're blessed. No, but
Speaker 1: I do it in a very affectionate way. You know that.
Speaker 4: Yeah, Well, you're the Don Rickles of our time. May
Speaker 4: I say that?
Speaker 1: No, not exactly. That's now we're really dating ourselves. Anyway.
Speaker 1: I found this first of all, we get to the
Speaker 1: book in a minute. I found this theory phenomenal, and
Speaker 1: you give great explanations.
Speaker 4: Why all right, let me walk through this. Our friend
Speaker 4: Jonathan Turley and others gone on TV, and of course
Speaker 4: all the Democrats and levels on the other channel say
Speaker 4: president cannot pardon himself on a state charge, and they
Speaker 4: have a completely wrong amount of you and I say
Speaker 4: that respectfully. Number one, the Constitution says absolutely nothing about
Speaker 4: indicting a sitting president or where the president can pardon himself.
Speaker 2: So where do we look.
Speaker 4: We look at what is the position of the Department
Speaker 4: of Justice over the last half century. So in nineteen
Speaker 4: seventy three, the Nick King Department of Justice said, you
Speaker 4: cannot invite a sitting president because you will decapitate one
Speaker 4: third of the government, the executive brand, because the president
Speaker 4: will have to fight full time to defend his liberty,
Speaker 4: which is not an easy thing to do no matter
Speaker 4: who you are, while at the same time protecting us
Speaker 4: from foreign enemies and all these decisions that have to
Speaker 4: be made as one third of the government. So they said,
Speaker 4: there's no way the framers of the Constitution would have
Speaker 4: even contemplated this or supported this. So remember this is
Speaker 4: before there was a Department of Justice. And US attorneys
Speaker 4: and all the rest. And I agree with that. In
Speaker 4: two thousand, excuse me, yeah, two thousand, the Clinton Justice
Speaker 4: Department went through the analysis of the Nixon Justice Department
Speaker 4: and came to exactly the same conclusion. And moreover, let's
Speaker 4: say a president is indicted and convicted. What's he's supposed
Speaker 4: to do when the presidency out of the jail. So
Speaker 4: if you want to remove a president, that the only
Speaker 4: way is impeachment. So I keep paying these people say, Okay,
Speaker 4: if Trump is indicted and he's elected president, while he's
Speaker 4: been indicted, So let's say he's elected president, or he's
Speaker 4: convicted of something and he's elected president, he can only
Speaker 4: pardon himself on the federal charge. It's not the state charges.
Speaker 4: And I said, where'd that come from. It's certainly not
Speaker 4: in the constitution. So they argue that, you know, the
Speaker 4: states of the right to do Wait a minute, this
Speaker 4: has nothing to do with federalism. You've got thousands and
Speaker 4: thousands of local and state prosecutors, thousands of them. They
Speaker 4: don't have the power to decapitate the federal executive branch either.
Speaker 4: So if Willis and her family there in Atlanta and
Speaker 4: Vice President of the United States and he becomes president.
Speaker 4: Forget about conviction right now. I said, of course he
Speaker 4: can pardon himself for exactly the same reasons the Department
Speaker 4: of Justice said in nineteen seventy three, in two thousand,
Speaker 4: as applies to a federal charge, it has nothing to
Speaker 4: do with federalism. In fact, it's reverse federalism. You cannot
Speaker 4: have a county prosecutor.
Speaker 2: That's where Willis is.
Speaker 4: She's a Fulton County prosecutor. You can't have a county prosecutor,
Speaker 4: of which there are so many, and by the way,
Speaker 4: so many of them are politically corrupt, take out a
Speaker 4: president by him. And so the argument that Jonathan and
Speaker 4: others have made is I'm not exactly clear, but they say,
Speaker 4: it's clear that a president can parton himself if he's
Speaker 4: cited at the federal level, that you can at in
Speaker 4: fact indict him at the federal level. But the state
Speaker 4: g's another story, And I'm saying, no, it's not. It's
Speaker 4: exactly the same story. It's exactly the same explanation the
Speaker 4: Department of Justice gave before prosecutors. Grand juries judges are
Speaker 4: not free to decapitate one third of the government Furthermore,
Speaker 4: both memos say, the American people voted for this person
Speaker 4: to be president, So if their representatives decide he should
Speaker 4: be impeached and their senators decide he should be removed,
Speaker 4: that's what the constitution provides for. But are not elected
Speaker 4: grand jury, and are not elected jury. I'm not elected judge.
Speaker 4: In many cases, an don't elected prosecutor or a Democrat prosecutor.
Speaker 4: They do not have the power to reach into the
Speaker 4: federal government, to reach into the constitution and decapitate and
Speaker 4: cripple the executive branch. So I don't know why these
Speaker 4: people think it's necessary to keep making the same foolish
Speaker 4: argument that a state or local or county prosecutor can
Speaker 4: do it, a federal prosecutor cannot. So remember, this isn't
Speaker 4: a constitutional issue per se. It is a rational, practical answer,
Speaker 4: But it becomes a constitutional issue if a local prosecutor
Speaker 4: can decapitate the federal executive branch. I hope I'm being
Speaker 4: as clear as I can. I'm using as much plain
Speaker 4: English as I can as I can figure out. Does
Speaker 4: that make sense to you?
Speaker 1: It makes complete sense, and I think you explained it
Speaker 1: perfectly quick freak. We'll come back more with the great one,
Speaker 1: Mark Levin eight hundred and nine to four one seawn
Speaker 1: our number. If you want to be a part of
Speaker 1: the program, I would continue with the great one Mark Levin.
Speaker 1: Don't forget his new book, The Democratic Party Hates America
Speaker 1: coming out soon if you want a first print aedation,
Speaker 1: Amazon dot com, Hannity dot Com. As we continue with
Speaker 1: Mark Levin, very important. I think people also hear the
Speaker 1: other part of what you're saying. A sitting president cannot
Speaker 1: be indicted and and that is critical. Okay, So my
Speaker 1: next question is, you know, we've never had a former
Speaker 1: president indicted, never mind four times. Mark, It's never happened
Speaker 1: in history. We've never had the chief rival of a
Speaker 1: current president heading into a presidential election year, facing four
Speaker 1: trials in the middle of primaries and that election. It's
Speaker 1: never happened before. President Trump's argument is that, in and
Speaker 1: of itself is election interference. How do you react to that?
Speaker 4: Well, they're making this argument because I've made it on
Speaker 4: your show, my show on radio, which is this take
Speaker 4: the rationality the rationale that's being used with respect to
Speaker 4: what I just said. You're indicting a candidate who's running
Speaker 4: for president, of the United States. You're trying to take
Speaker 4: him out. This is why every one of them say
Speaker 4: we need to have a trial quickly. They start with December.
Speaker 4: One wants in January, another one in February, and another
Speaker 4: one March. Because their hope is taking a victim of
Speaker 4: at least one chart and then what happens. America Ready
Speaker 4: to get even deeper into the weeds, mister.
Speaker 1: Hannity, I got to tell you where you're going, and
Speaker 1: that is when the President would want to appeal this,
Speaker 1: and I would believe that. I don't think any one
Speaker 1: of these jurisdictions are good for the president of New
Speaker 1: York City. Do I think Donald Trump can get a
Speaker 1: fair trial?
Speaker 4: I do not.
Speaker 1: DC same thing Fulton County, Georgia. I'm not confident there either, Mark.
Speaker 1: And However, on appeal, I believe the President will be successful. However,
Speaker 1: the appeal will likely come after the election, won't it.
Speaker 4: Yes, So that's that. But let me tell you how
Speaker 4: evil and diabolical these people are. Here's what they really
Speaker 4: want to do. They've already been talking about it. It's
Speaker 4: already static, it's already floating around as absurd as it is.
Speaker 4: Under Section three, the Fourteenth Amendment. Remember the fourteenth A
Speaker 4: memo was passed right after the Civil War. There's an
Speaker 4: insurrection section in a rebellion section.
Speaker 2: So if you.
Speaker 4: Participated in an insurrection, a rebellion against the country, you're
Speaker 4: not qualified to serve in any public office, local, state,
Speaker 4: or federal, certainly president of the United States. So what
Speaker 4: they want to say is on the Georgia case and
Speaker 4: on the January sixth so called case in Washington, DC,
Speaker 4: that he was convicted of one truge, just one, and
Speaker 4: therefore he participated in an insurrection, even though they're not
Speaker 4: charging with an insurrection. You will notice, you will notice
Speaker 4: what Jack Smith said when he gave his little statement.
Speaker 4: He explained basically that Trump was involved in an insurrection.
Speaker 4: Without charging with an insurrection, all they need to do
Speaker 4: is convict him, maybe under the ku Klux Klan Act
Speaker 4: of eighteen seventy one, the Enroun acts that they're using
Speaker 4: the Financial Obstruction Act that they're talking about, because these
Speaker 4: are actually fairly simple laws to convict people on, even
Speaker 4: though they have almost no application of what happened on
Speaker 4: January sixth. He will say that these are January sixth convictions.
Speaker 4: All they have to do is persuade Democrat secretaries of
Speaker 4: state not to put Trump on the ballot, or if
Speaker 4: he's elected president, to rule on behalf of the state
Speaker 4: that the electors cannot possibly go to this man because
Speaker 4: he was involved in an insurrection and or rebellion against
Speaker 4: the country. They listen to me. These are arcane rules,
Speaker 4: arcane parts of the constitution. This has never been used
Speaker 4: against a president before. This is where they're going. As
Speaker 4: Alan Dershwitz wrote in The Daily Mail, they've taken every
Speaker 4: aspect of a typical challenge to an election. During a
Speaker 4: presidential election, it wasn't over. The election's never over until
Speaker 4: Congress counts to the electoral votes. That's when it's over.
Speaker 4: So you can't heal an election when you're asking for
Speaker 4: due electors, when you're asking officials maybe to change the law,
Speaker 4: when you're asking Republican counties that aren't Fish County, Finish County,
Speaker 4: if they're under county, to go see if you can
Speaker 4: find some more votes. This is all perfectly legal. One
Speaker 4: lawyers are writing memos on how to take on the Bush.
Speaker 4: Excuse me to Biden the Democrat Party in Georgia. There's
Speaker 4: nothing illegal or unconstitutional everything I just told you, everybody's
Speaker 4: been indicted for this, and then to make things where
Speaker 4: she throws them all together, claims it to mob operation,
Speaker 4: basically under redail, that it's a racketeering operation, and I'm
Speaker 4: going to have all nineteen in front of the court
Speaker 4: where she won't but she wants to, and the law
Speaker 4: sort it out so somebody will be convicted of something
Speaker 4: and then we have our insurrection.
Speaker 1: I've felt the same way of expressed the same sentiment,
Speaker 1: not as articulate as you really well done. And if
Speaker 1: you look at the case in Georgia in particular, almost
Speaker 1: every single charge, the bar is they have to show
Speaker 1: criminal intent that Donald Trump and all these other defendants
Speaker 1: intended and knew and understood that what they were doing
Speaker 1: was criminal, a very high bar, except if you have
Speaker 1: a jury pool that is not favorable to a particular
Speaker 1: political party. I don't think a motion to change venue
Speaker 1: will be successful, unfortunately, but I think you're right in
Speaker 1: terms of bringing all of this to a federal court
Speaker 1: and hopefully getting it before the Supreme Court. You know,
Speaker 1: we had Bob McDonald on yesterday. You know, he got
Speaker 1: convicted of eleven charges, and the US Supreme Court unanimous decision.
Speaker 1: They looked at the actual weakness in the statute and
Speaker 1: immediately overturned that conviction and vacated it anyway. The great
Speaker 1: One Mark Levin his book The Democratic Party Hates America,
Speaker 1: coming out soon if you want a first prent edition,
Speaker 1: Amazon dot com, Hannity dot com, bookstores everywhere. By the way,
Speaker 1: Mark is the only guest in the history of cable
Speaker 1: news that will tell the host that's it. I'm done.
Speaker 1: I'll give you a lot of credit for that. You're
Speaker 1: you're not laughing at my jokes today, I'm really falling
Speaker 1: flat with you. What's going on? I got to get
Speaker 1: I gotta get you in the happy place.
Speaker 4: You know what, I haven't been in a happy place.
Speaker 4: He's my wife. This stuff's swirling around the country.
Speaker 1: That's terrible, the break out of it. I'm trying to no,
Speaker 1: I know, it's it's it's that we've never lived through this, Mark,
Speaker 1: and it's scary. Mark Levin, Great one. Thank you, sir.
Speaker 4: I love you, buddy.
Speaker 1: Heay the best. Same to you. Eight hundred and nine
Speaker 1: four one, Shawn, you want to be a part of
Speaker 1: the program,