Speaker 1: Let not your heart be troubled. You are listening to
Speaker 1: the Sean Hannity Radio Show podcast. If you're like me
Speaker 1: and suffer from insomnia, you know what, that's not fun.
Speaker 1: You know I tried everything I couldn't get a good
Speaker 1: night's sleep. And this is neither drug nor alcohol induced.
Speaker 1: That's right. It is my pillow. Mike Lindell invented it
Speaker 1: and he fitted me for my first my pillow, and
Speaker 1: it's changed my life. I fall asleep faster, stay asleep longer,
Speaker 1: and the good news you can too. Just go to
Speaker 1: my pillow dot com promo code Sean and take advantage
Speaker 1: of one of Mike Glendell's best offers, his special four pack.
Speaker 1: You get fifty percent off to my Pillow Premium Pillows
Speaker 1: to go Anywhere Pillows. My Pillows made in the USA,
Speaker 1: has a sixty day unconditional money back guaranteed no risk
Speaker 1: to you, and attend you warranty. You don't want to
Speaker 1: spend more sleepless nights on a pillow tossing interny that's
Speaker 1: not working for you. Just go to my pillow dot
Speaker 1: com right now, use the promo code Sean, and you
Speaker 1: get Mike Glendell's special four pack. You get to my
Speaker 1: Pillow Premium Pillows to Go Anywhere Pillows fifty percent off,
Speaker 1: and you'll start getting the kind of peaceful and RESTful
Speaker 1: and comfortable and deep, peeling and recruitative sleep you've been
Speaker 1: craving and deserve. My pillow dot Com promo coach on.
Speaker 1: All right, glad you're with us. It is great to
Speaker 1: be back, and what an incredible news week this is
Speaker 1: going to be anyway right down a toll free telephone number,
Speaker 1: it's eight nine for one, Shawn. If you want to
Speaker 1: be a part of the program, let me just break
Speaker 1: down where the week is headed and some of the
Speaker 1: things that we know are coming up and some of
Speaker 1: the things that we will be active and involved in
Speaker 1: that I think you're gonna want to be following. First
Speaker 1: of all, at nine oh one thirty Eastern Standard time tonight,
Speaker 1: the President will announce his decision to replace Justice Anthony
Speaker 1: Kennedy on the U. S. Supreme Court. UH. In other words,
Speaker 1: right as we kick off Hannity tonight, we will have
Speaker 1: full complete coverage analysis of the President's comments, and of course,
Speaker 1: the Democrats predictable, It does not matter who the President picks,
Speaker 1: It just doesn't matter if the president cured cancer. Now,
Speaker 1: I am certain if he was able to find a cure,
Speaker 1: if he was willing to give a million dollars to
Speaker 1: every man, woman and child in this country, I am
Speaker 1: convinced the left would hate him. I'm just there's nothing
Speaker 1: he can do in their eyes that they're not going
Speaker 1: to oppose. And the media, of course is right there
Speaker 1: with them. Um, But that's gonna happen six o one
Speaker 1: thirty pm East Pacific Standard time on the West Coast tonight.
Speaker 1: We're gonna have that. That's on Hannity. Let me tell
Speaker 1: you the other things that are happening this week. So
Speaker 1: Lisa Page will be testifying on Wednesday. That will be
Speaker 1: behind closed doors, but I'm pretty certain that there's gonna
Speaker 1: be a lot of information from what I'm hearing. She
Speaker 1: probably is scared to death about her involvement as the
Speaker 1: lead counsel for Andrew McCabe and the boyfriend of Peter Struck.
Speaker 1: And I'm just assuming she's gonna have an awful lot
Speaker 1: to say because there's a lot on the line as
Speaker 1: it relates to her life and her future here. So
Speaker 1: then the other half of this dynamic Trump hating duo
Speaker 1: Peter Struck. He will be testifying publicly on Thursday of
Speaker 1: this week and we will have that coverage as well.
Speaker 1: And my sources in DC are telling me that he's
Speaker 1: getting very nervous at the idea of the jeopardy he
Speaker 1: now finds himself in, which is, you know, the heart
Speaker 1: of this is all very simple. Greg Garald will join
Speaker 1: us later. He his book is out in two weeks,
Speaker 1: The Russia Hoax, the illicit scheme to clear Hillary Clinton
Speaker 1: and frame Donald Trump. And at the heart of all
Speaker 1: of this is Peter Struck. He's the one that changed.
Speaker 1: Remember he was writing the Exoneration of Hillary Clinton in
Speaker 1: May early May with James Comey. He's the one that
Speaker 1: changed the original draft from gross negligence, which is the
Speaker 1: legal standard that would have mandated that Hillary be charged
Speaker 1: with the Espionage Act, because well, she did commit felonies
Speaker 1: to extreme carelessness, and that was all in an effort
Speaker 1: to help preserve her candidacy with the belief that she
Speaker 1: had to beat Donald Trump, because Donald Trump, you know,
Speaker 1: we need was loathsome to them, and they needed an
Speaker 1: insurance policy and they they even said they would stop him.
Speaker 1: So they've got a lot of questions to be answered,
Speaker 1: and that's all coming up this week. Also, the President
Speaker 1: will be taking on NATO this week. In other words,
Speaker 1: we can't as Americans be the piggy bank for the
Speaker 1: entire world, and that goes for the U n that
Speaker 1: goes for NATO, and that our NATO allies are going
Speaker 1: to have to now begin the process of paying their
Speaker 1: fair share. Which a lot of this a little overlapping
Speaker 1: as it relates to these trade de els, which to
Speaker 1: me is just the President negotiating with our allies saying, um,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, but the idea that you're charging tariffs on
Speaker 1: our steel, on our dairy are farmers, and on you know,
Speaker 1: our automobiles, which basically charge so much in teriffs we
Speaker 1: can't even we can't even import vehicles to other countries
Speaker 1: because it becomes so cost prohibited to the people, they're
Speaker 1: never gonna buy them. And he's saying, no, we believe
Speaker 1: in free trade, but fair trade. And I'm pretty certain
Speaker 1: that there are gonna be some significant developments in terms
Speaker 1: of these countries realizing how much and how badly they
Speaker 1: need the United States and every United States consumer and
Speaker 1: access to our markets. That I think there will be
Speaker 1: better deals that will be struck over time. I don't
Speaker 1: think this is about launching a trade war um, because
Speaker 1: that wouldn't be good for anybody in the process. But
Speaker 1: fighting for free and fair trade, I think is of
Speaker 1: a battle worth having, just like I think it's it's
Speaker 1: not unreasonable to ask the rest of the world to
Speaker 1: step up and pay their fair share of the United
Speaker 1: Nations and pay their fair share of the billions and
Speaker 1: billions of dollars we spend on protecting our friends and
Speaker 1: our allies. We have no problem helping, We have no
Speaker 1: problem in defending. We have already proven to the world
Speaker 1: that we are willing to shed American blood, American treasure,
Speaker 1: spend American billions to help keep the world a better
Speaker 1: and safer place, and and in the end, we're not
Speaker 1: looking to conquer anybody. Although we might ask for a
Speaker 1: little plot of land visa the Normandy UH to bury
Speaker 1: our debt. That might we might request that, but short
Speaker 1: of that, America should not bear the burden of defending
Speaker 1: the entire world when these countries do have the means
Speaker 1: and the ability to step up to a much greater
Speaker 1: extent than they have been. Also, later this week, well
Speaker 1: brus the President will be discussing and talking with his
Speaker 1: NATO allies. That's happening in Brussels, and then he's headed
Speaker 1: to London, where we will be later in the week,
Speaker 1: and we are expected they're to have massive protests anti
Speaker 1: Trump protesting. The left is gonna love this. The left is, Oh,
Speaker 1: they're gonna, They're absolutely gonna, They're gonna. This is like
Speaker 1: manna from heaven for them to have leftists in Europe protesting,
Speaker 1: socialists in Europe protesting open borders, people in Europe protesting
Speaker 1: Donald Trump's agenda and policies that have only proven to
Speaker 1: be a great success for the people of the United
Speaker 1: States of America. Uh. In many ways, to me, it's
Speaker 1: somewhat laughable. Um, but let me begin. So we're less now,
Speaker 1: less than six hours away from the president's announcement. I'm
Speaker 1: not gonna spend the rest of the show speculating who
Speaker 1: it might be. I don't know who it's going to be.
Speaker 1: I believe it's probably down likely to four people, maybe
Speaker 1: a fifth whose name is kind of just been thrown
Speaker 1: in the mix a little bit. The President is no
Speaker 1: tor orious for keeping people guessing. I mean, he loves
Speaker 1: to troll and I would have no doubt at all
Speaker 1: that he's doing so in this case, UM, giving you
Speaker 1: the short bio and names of everybody you have, I
Speaker 1: think she's probably the most interesting of all the candidates.
Speaker 1: And it is fascinating how the left is just they
Speaker 1: almost melt at the thought that that Amy Coney Barrett
Speaker 1: is her name of Indiana, UH would in fact be picked.
Speaker 1: She was a recent choice for the US Court of
Speaker 1: Appeals in the seventh District, and she's forty six years old,
Speaker 1: and of course she previously clerked for Anton and Scalia.
Speaker 1: She was appointed by Trump and confirmed for the seventh
Speaker 1: UH District Court of Appeals in October, had a big showdown.
Speaker 1: I'll get to more details in this in October seventeen
Speaker 1: with Diane Feinstein. Barrett is UH. She seems to be
Speaker 1: a top contender. If I would have put them in
Speaker 1: order and probably say that Brett Kavanaugh has probably one
Speaker 1: if just I'm guessing based on what I'm hearing, and
Speaker 1: probably Barrett right there next to him, and Thomas Hardeman
Speaker 1: not far away, and and Raymond Catholics is there as well,
Speaker 1: and um, Partaman is an interesting choice. I know that
Speaker 1: Senator Rick santorm happens to be a big fan of him.
Speaker 1: He's out of Pennsylvania. He's on the US Court of
Speaker 1: Appeals for the Third Circuit. He's fifty two years old.
Speaker 1: By the way, that's the same circuit that that the
Speaker 1: President's sister works on and happens to be a fan
Speaker 1: of Harteman. So that's interesting in terms of what the
Speaker 1: President might be thinking about in terms of his decision. Uh.
Speaker 1: He's spent now about three years as a federal judge
Speaker 1: in Pittsburgh before being nominated for the Third Circuit, and
Speaker 1: that was back in two thousand and six. He has
Speaker 1: a lot of judicial experience. He graduated as well Notre
Speaker 1: Dame and went to law school at Georgetown. There's a
Speaker 1: two thousand and seven ruling Hardaman wrote that upheld the
Speaker 1: constitutionality of strip searches of jail prisoners, regardless of how
Speaker 1: minor and offense they might have been accused of, and
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court upheld that and endorsed his decision. That
Speaker 1: was a five forward decision. Uh. Then there's Brett Kavanaugh.
Speaker 1: I would say, probably through the end of last week,
Speaker 1: was the leading contender. If you're watching the news, UM,
Speaker 1: not sure if that is a head fake or not,
Speaker 1: I honestly don't know. And the US Court of Appeals
Speaker 1: for the District of Columbia, he has probably the most
Speaker 1: experience in terms of judicial writings, and I know that
Speaker 1: there are some cenotas that are that are probably Oh
Speaker 1: the amount of work we have to read twelve years
Speaker 1: of opinions, how difficult, which could be done very expeditiously
Speaker 1: and quickly if they really cared. Uh. He was appointed
Speaker 1: to the powerful D. C. Circuit Court of Appeals in
Speaker 1: two thousand and six by George W. Bush, for whom
Speaker 1: he had previously served as assistant to the President and
Speaker 1: staff secretary, graduate of Yale Law School, clerk for Justice Kennedy,
Speaker 1: and part of the He was an associate council for
Speaker 1: ken Starr that investigated Clinton, and that became a big
Speaker 1: issue last week as it results for him Um in
Speaker 1: his choice and his belief that Clinton could have obstructed
Speaker 1: justice by sending out surrogates to defend him, knowing that
Speaker 1: the surrogates were lying, And then he made a big
Speaker 1: deal in two thousand and nine. About nine years later
Speaker 1: um in a lower review. I believe it was a
Speaker 1: speech in Michigan. If I'm my memory serves me right,
Speaker 1: and read it over the weekend where he just basically said, no,
Speaker 1: I was wrong in what I was saying back in
Speaker 1: probably he was in his twenties at the time. He
Speaker 1: had to be in his twenties or late twenties. UM.
Speaker 1: So that is interesting, and at least it was at
Speaker 1: one point thought of wow that he believed this, this
Speaker 1: is a problem, and then it was discovered that he
Speaker 1: had said, no, I don't believe that at all. Uh.
Speaker 1: Raymond Cathledge a little bit about him. He's from Michigan
Speaker 1: U s. Court of Appeals for the same circuit and
Speaker 1: Keitholics who joined the six Circuit in two thousand and eight. Again,
Speaker 1: pretty long history, long resume, uh, something rarely seen on
Speaker 1: the president Supreme Court list. Now. One of the things
Speaker 1: you've got to keep in mind, the President has given
Speaker 1: us this list and has expanded this list since before
Speaker 1: he was running. There's nobody on this list or any
Speaker 1: of the names we're hearing that the President hasn't foretold
Speaker 1: of before he ever got elected. In other words, he
Speaker 1: just he's been very forthright about the type of justices
Speaker 1: he's looking for and that these are the type of
Speaker 1: people he would be examining anyway. Keitholic trode an opinion
Speaker 1: rejecting the uh uh e e O C in the
Speaker 1: case seeking to limit private employer's use of credit checks
Speaker 1: for job applicants, and the e O C arguing that
Speaker 1: the practice amount of a racial discrimination rate. Keitholics accused
Speaker 1: the agency of hypocrisy, and Keitholish also issued a politically
Speaker 1: charged ruling blasting the Obama administration for continuous existence to
Speaker 1: efforts to discover what actions the I R S took
Speaker 1: against tea party groups nonprofit groups. Uh. Then another name
Speaker 1: that's come up pretty last minute is Joan Larson. Judge Larson,
Speaker 1: confirmed by to the six Circuit Court of Appeals, previously
Speaker 1: served on the Michigan Supreme Court from fifteen until earlier
Speaker 1: this year, and before serving as a judge, was on
Speaker 1: the University of Michigan Law School faculty for more than
Speaker 1: a decade. Well, you know, one of the things you've
Speaker 1: got to remember, why is this not? Why is it
Speaker 1: that Democrats always get the judicial activists that they want,
Speaker 1: and sometimes Republican presidents how comes sometimes they get it wrong. Well,
Speaker 1: it's because Judge Ginsberg once said that you know, I'm
Speaker 1: not going to comment on a particular case. And that's
Speaker 1: sort of like the standard that they now use for
Speaker 1: every judge or or antonin Scalia, saying that I have
Speaker 1: to may maybe make decisions that the law demands that
Speaker 1: I personally don't even like. So the big battle here
Speaker 1: is over judicial philosophy, and that is and again, and
Speaker 1: they're all intellectuals, they're all constitutional scholars, and so sometimes
Speaker 1: far more complicated and nuance than anybody really knows. And
Speaker 1: I don't know if there's anybody of certainty, but there's
Speaker 1: been a lot of time for everybody to look to
Speaker 1: the background of these individuals. I'm just gonna give you
Speaker 1: the information. I don't know who the President's deciding, and
Speaker 1: you know, I just it's gonna be interesting. But I
Speaker 1: do believe the president has been very clear and believes
Speaker 1: in originalism, constitutionalism, and he is against judicial activism. So
Speaker 1: he was not going to be looking for somebody wants
Speaker 1: to legislate from the bench or use foreign law as
Speaker 1: a basis and a decision, like some of our liberal
Speaker 1: justices have done in the past. You cannot get if
Speaker 1: you like interesting times, you can't get better than this.
Speaker 1: It's I was explaining to a liberal over my fourth
Speaker 1: of July vacation. I'm trying to explain to them, Okay,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump believes, what are you going to do every day?
Speaker 1: I said, it's never gonna get that interesting for you
Speaker 1: because liberals wake up every day. And then just how
Speaker 1: do I hate him? How do I hate Donald Trump? Today?
Speaker 1: There's the latest tweet, the latest, latest, latest tweet, the
Speaker 1: biggest outrage. And I keep telling people if they listen,
Speaker 1: if you go on Twitter, all you have to do
Speaker 1: is follow one liberal journalist, just one. And what they
Speaker 1: do is they live in this little bubble world that's
Speaker 1: sort of like the liberal Joe Meeka, you know, Humpty
Speaker 1: Dumpty world and the Nicole Wallace world, where they try
Speaker 1: to feign moral outrage, more moral outrage than the other one.
Speaker 1: If they say no, Donald Trump's the liar liar, the
Speaker 1: next one will say, no, you're wrong, He's a liar, liar, liar,
Speaker 1: pants on fire. And then the next one's gonna say no, liar, liar,
Speaker 1: liar pants on fire. And he's stupid, he's dumb, he's uh,
Speaker 1: he's whatever. And it's like if you take Alca Sultzer.
Speaker 1: I've used this analogy many times. Do you ever have
Speaker 1: alka seltzer alka Seltzer plus cold medicine, which I use
Speaker 1: when I get a cold. You just go PLoP, PLoP,
Speaker 1: fizz fizz, and they bubble and fizz predictably and outcomes
Speaker 1: the venom, the vitriol, the hatred. If you don't believe it,
Speaker 1: just watch what happens the second that Donald Trump announces
Speaker 1: either Barrett or or uh who else, Hardeman or Kavanaugh
Speaker 1: or Catheridge or anybody, it doesn't matter. The borking will
Speaker 1: begin instantaneously and it will be universal stupidity. Quick break
Speaker 1: right back right as we roll along, Sean Hannity Show
Speaker 1: one sewn. You want to be a part of the program. Alright,
Speaker 1: five and a half hours now, the President five hours
Speaker 1: twenty five minutes will be announcing his choice to replace
Speaker 1: Anthony Kennedy on the U. S. Supreme Court. It comes
Speaker 1: down to it looks like five people. Amy Barrett, Indiana,
Speaker 1: Thomas Hardeman of Pennsylvania, Brett Havanaugh, who seemingly was the
Speaker 1: front runner all last week of Maryland, not sure if
Speaker 1: his stock has risen or fallen or remains the same,
Speaker 1: Raymond Catheridge of Michigan, and Judge Larson, who I mentioned
Speaker 1: just only in the last day or two, seems so
Speaker 1: her name has come up a little bit. Not sure
Speaker 1: whether that's going or if that means anything. Let me
Speaker 1: just back up here a second, and I just want
Speaker 1: to tell you what's going to happen. The President will
Speaker 1: make the announcement tonight. This is about the and the
Speaker 1: president tweeted this. President said, I have long heard the
Speaker 1: most important decision that a US president can make is
Speaker 1: the selection of a Supreme Court justice. He's right. We'll
Speaker 1: be announced tonight at nine pm. I kind of like it.
Speaker 1: It's right during the start of Hannity. Perfect, and we
Speaker 1: get to talk about it first. Um. And it is
Speaker 1: the most important decision. This is a lifelong appointment. Now,
Speaker 1: remember this was a massive issue during the campaign. You know,
Speaker 1: it's a little frustrating to me is that all of
Speaker 1: the never Trumpers, all the people that have really just
Speaker 1: have done everything they could do short of you know,
Speaker 1: going out there with Hillary signs at a Trump rally,
Speaker 1: most of them, and how all of them were told,
Speaker 1: wait a minute, this is about the Supreme Court. Look
Speaker 1: at who the president. Then candidate Trump was saying that
Speaker 1: he would like to put on the Supreme Court, people
Speaker 1: like Anton and Scalia who recently passed away, like Clarence Thomas,
Speaker 1: like Sam Alito, who has been a very strong conservative,
Speaker 1: originalist constitutional voice on the Supreme Court. And that that
Speaker 1: that is the type of justice that the president will
Speaker 1: be looking for, and that list is who he would
Speaker 1: choose from, which, by the way, gives the the opposition
Speaker 1: plenty of time to do their research. There's not gonna
Speaker 1: be a single person that the Left is going to say,
Speaker 1: great choice, Mr. President, because they lost the election. They
Speaker 1: only want people like Judge Sodamajor or Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
Speaker 1: etcetera on the court. That's the type of justice they're
Speaker 1: looking for. People that are and I guess it comes
Speaker 1: down to a battle between originalism and a judicial activists.
Speaker 1: They are looking for judicial activists. What is a judicial activist?
Speaker 1: That is somebody that believes that they can legislate from
Speaker 1: the bench and other words, they don't really strongly believe
Speaker 1: in the Constitution. They don't seem to believe in co
Speaker 1: equal branches of government, they don't seem to believe in
Speaker 1: separation of powers. They're perfectly comfortable with judges on the
Speaker 1: bench writing laws which is their job. And the reason
Speaker 1: they want to punt these, especially these controversial decisions to
Speaker 1: the court is there's no political retribution for a judge.
Speaker 1: This is a lifetime appointment. So there so they would
Speaker 1: the things that they cannot get done at the ballot box,
Speaker 1: the things that they could never pass legislatively, that you
Speaker 1: the people would stop, or that there would be a
Speaker 1: huge political price if they ever did try to pass
Speaker 1: a lot of the legislation. They would prefer to use
Speaker 1: a left wing judicial activists, even if that justice site
Speaker 1: foreign law as a basis for a decision which has
Speaker 1: actually happened, which kind of blows my mind, because we
Speaker 1: are a constitutional republic and that judges, and as the
Speaker 1: Great antonin Scalia once said, a good judge will do
Speaker 1: and must consider what the law demands, and that is
Speaker 1: they the judicial philosophy of the original intent. In other words,
Speaker 1: it is deep respect for the fact that we have
Speaker 1: an executive branch, a judicial branch, but also a legislative branch.
Speaker 1: And why Congress would want to see their authority or
Speaker 1: allow a judiciary to assert their authority is because they
Speaker 1: know that that's what they really want America to be,
Speaker 1: and America to turn into but they wouldn't dare ever
Speaker 1: say it because they know politically that they would never survive.
Speaker 1: So this is a big, big battle. It now seems.
Speaker 1: With Neil Gorsuch emly placed in the Supreme Court, it
Speaker 1: looks like that this could be a This could be
Speaker 1: a turning point because Justice Kennedy was a very unpredictable vote.
Speaker 1: We know that he was the swing vote on the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. That's why this choice matters so much. One
Speaker 1: of the things that I've been watching, I really have
Speaker 1: not I've not gone to Twitter, i have not been
Speaker 1: commenting on it, but I've been reading a lot. And
Speaker 1: the reason is there's so much lobbying going on behind
Speaker 1: the scenes. It actually is somewhat nauseating. It seems that
Speaker 1: if someone's friends with has known or is an acquaintance
Speaker 1: of a particular candidate, that hey, they would they want
Speaker 1: to tell everyone, no, this is the choice. And maybe
Speaker 1: they're making valid arguments. Maybe they really believe that the
Speaker 1: people that they know or have known for a long
Speaker 1: time would would live up to the The philosophy again,
Speaker 1: this is judicial philosophy that we're really looking at here
Speaker 1: that they believe is important for the Court. I shouldn't
Speaker 1: question their motives in any way. I know that Mike Lee,
Speaker 1: I think he got a call from the President, he
Speaker 1: was interviewed. I think one of the first things that
Speaker 1: the left would do. And I think Mike Lee would
Speaker 1: be an incredible originalist and constitutionalist, and I believe that
Speaker 1: he would do a great job on the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: I put him on my list in a heartbeat. I
Speaker 1: find the most interesting person on the list that seems
Speaker 1: to be hated the most is Amy Barrett of Indiana
Speaker 1: because she happens to be Catholic, and she happens to
Speaker 1: be very religious, and she has happens to have written
Speaker 1: about originalism. And the Left, for whatever reason, is kind
Speaker 1: of glomed onto this that. I mean, it's almost like
Speaker 1: they feel this is a a battle of religion, you know.
Speaker 1: You know, I would argue that the left war against
Speaker 1: women continues. Remember before I went on vacation, there were
Speaker 1: the attacks on Sarah Sanders, the attacks um Pam Bondi,
Speaker 1: the attacks on Secretary Nielsen, the attacks on Avanka, the
Speaker 1: attacks on Milania, the attacks on Baron Trump, the attacks
Speaker 1: on Chloe Trump, the four year old daughter of Donald
Speaker 1: Trump Jr. The granddaughter of the president. I mean, we've
Speaker 1: watched all of this unfold. The reason you might ask, well,
Speaker 1: why is this always a mystery? Why don't we know? Well,
Speaker 1: there's a couple of good answers. I'm not sure you'll
Speaker 1: like them. But as Justice Ginsburg answered when she was
Speaker 1: in the process, she was going through the confirmation process,
Speaker 1: she won't comment on any particular case that she might
Speaker 1: have to rule on in the future, which, by the way,
Speaker 1: every nominee will probably say the exact same things. I know.
Speaker 1: The Left wants to whip everybody's mind into a frenzy
Speaker 1: that somehow Roe vi. Wade is going to be overturned.
Speaker 1: The intellectual side of a lot of judges is that
Speaker 1: Roe v. Wade is horrible law, and that it ought
Speaker 1: to be the states that make that decision. And I'll
Speaker 1: be perfectly blunt and brutally honest here, there is no
Speaker 1: way in the next number of decades, perhaps even a
Speaker 1: hundred years, that a state like New York or California,
Speaker 1: or New Jersey or Illinois, or probably at least forty
Speaker 1: six states whatever outlaw abortion. I don't think that's gonna have.
Speaker 1: It might be a couple of states, but that would
Speaker 1: be a couple. Um, so I think it is. It
Speaker 1: is a fear tactic. I think as of nine oh one. Well, well,
Speaker 1: let's say by nine oh three or nine oh four,
Speaker 1: when the president gets to the point where he mentions
Speaker 1: the name of his choice, well, when the person actually
Speaker 1: walks out with the president tonight, they are going to
Speaker 1: begin the process of smearing, besmirching, and attempting to destroy
Speaker 1: the character, the name, and the background of whoever the
Speaker 1: president and picks. It doesn't matter, for example, that this
Speaker 1: president is literally in in five plus days, has created
Speaker 1: record low unemployment in fourteen states in this country, record
Speaker 1: low unemployment for women in this country, record low unemployment
Speaker 1: for African Americans and Hispanic Americans in this country. We
Speaker 1: have a record number of people in terms of labor
Speaker 1: force participation, in other words, the numbers that we looked
Speaker 1: at closely in the Obama years, nobody seems, you know,
Speaker 1: Reagan once infamously said, you know, stay the course, And
Speaker 1: I will argue that probably starting next week, the importance
Speaker 1: of eighteen is going to be in the forefront of
Speaker 1: everybody's mind. Another way, Mitch McConnell now is speaking ahead
Speaker 1: of the president's Supreme Court announcement. It's very interesting from
Speaker 1: all that I've heard, Mr McConnell has been lobbying for
Speaker 1: the easiest confirmation process. That shouldn't be what it is.
Speaker 1: There's a reality that I have to talk about, and
Speaker 1: the reality is is that there is not a big
Speaker 1: margin in the Senate. In other words, the president has
Speaker 1: a balancing act here. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, if
Speaker 1: there was somebody they believe strongly would quote overturned Row
Speaker 1: and as I explained, it would go back to the States,
Speaker 1: they would oppose that that nominee. Then again, you've got
Speaker 1: strict constructionists and originalists I believe in the judicial philosophy
Speaker 1: that I believe in, like Scalia, like Thomas, people like
Speaker 1: Ted Cruz and Rampoll. You they too could be peeled
Speaker 1: off if the president doesn't make the right choice. John
Speaker 1: McCain has been very ill, so I'm not sure he
Speaker 1: will factor in here, But nor has he been a
Speaker 1: particularly reliable vote for the president. So the bottom line
Speaker 1: is there's no wiggle room here. And then on the
Speaker 1: other hand, politically, you've got all these red state Democrats,
Speaker 1: Claire mccaskell, Bill Nelson, Heidi HeiG Camp and others. Well,
Speaker 1: these are Democratic senators that live in very red states
Speaker 1: that like Donald Trump, they're gonna be feeling the pressure
Speaker 1: to support the president's nomineque. There's also the intellectualism that
Speaker 1: will be means that that people that are jurist or
Speaker 1: people that that literally immersed themselves in constitutional thought and
Speaker 1: constitutional precedent and constitutional writings. In the cases that you
Speaker 1: bring up, you can only glean so much because there's
Speaker 1: so much nuance and specifics in the particular cases that
Speaker 1: they might have ruled on, and that becomes an issue.
Speaker 1: For example, in the case I can tell you right
Speaker 1: now of of one US has been what twelve years
Speaker 1: on the court. I mean, that's a long time. That's
Speaker 1: a lot of justice capital for example. That's a long time,
Speaker 1: a lot of decisions to pour over on. And he
Speaker 1: was I think the front runner leading up to this week.
Speaker 1: And although things seems who knows, I mean, I don't
Speaker 1: even want to speculate. Everybody else is speculating. But here's
Speaker 1: what they want to do. This is what Senator Kennedy
Speaker 1: did to Robert Bork, who was probably one of the smartest,
Speaker 1: most brilliant judicial minds again that means intellectual, nuanced constitutionalist,
Speaker 1: and that's where and he never believed in legislating from
Speaker 1: the bench. This is what happened to him when he
Speaker 1: was announced. Robert Bork's America is a land of which
Speaker 1: women would be forced into back alley abortions, Blacks would
Speaker 1: sit at segregated lunch countess road police could break down
Speaker 1: citizens stores and midnight raids, and school children could not
Speaker 1: be about evolution right as an artist would be censured
Speaker 1: at the whim of government. Okay, really all of that
Speaker 1: was a lie, but it but it ended up and
Speaker 1: resulted in Judge boards Bork's name being withdrawn. And then
Speaker 1: of course we watched Clarence Thomas, who has turned out
Speaker 1: to be, in my humble opinion, one of the greatest
Speaker 1: justices in history. And if you've never read My Grandfather's Son,
Speaker 1: which is Judge Thomas's book, I urge you to read it.
Speaker 1: It is such a good book. And it talks about
Speaker 1: his grandfather and how his grandfather raised him in poverty
Speaker 1: under difficult, difficult, horrible circumstances. At times, remember him having
Speaker 1: to defend himself against the attacks of the left. This
Speaker 1: is a circus, it's a national disgrace. It is a
Speaker 1: high tech lenching for uppity blacks who in any way
Speaker 1: deigned to think for themselves. It is a message that
Speaker 1: unless you cow town to an old order, you will
Speaker 1: be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U. S. U. S. Senate,
Speaker 1: rather than hung from a treat I mean that became
Speaker 1: a national disgrace. But I can tell you the second
Speaker 1: the President announces his decision, it doesn't matter who it is.
Speaker 1: It's not Hillary's choice, and that will send them. Really,
Speaker 1: that's why elections matter. That's why matters, that's why will matter.
Speaker 1: The left in this country is more unhinged than they
Speaker 1: have ever been led by, by the way, a lot
Speaker 1: of so called never Trumpers that once said they were
Speaker 1: conservative and just lie. Al Right, glad you're with us.
Speaker 1: Hour to Sean Hannity Show. Right down our toll for
Speaker 1: telephone number one, Sean if you want to be a
Speaker 1: part of the program. In less than five hours, the
Speaker 1: President of the United States, Donald Trump, will announce his
Speaker 1: Supreme Court choice to replace Justice Kennedy. We have about
Speaker 1: well four real people I think that are on the list. Uh.
Speaker 1: That's Amy Barrett of Indiana, Thomas Hardeman of Pennsylvania, Brett Kavanaugh,
Speaker 1: who seemed last week to be the front runner of Maryland,
Speaker 1: Raymond Catholicge of Michigan, And we just heard a little
Speaker 1: bit of rumblings about Judge Joan Larson. I'm not sure
Speaker 1: if this is a head fake from the President or not.
Speaker 1: He's been known alike to keep his choices and his
Speaker 1: decisions close to the vest and joining us now for
Speaker 1: some insight into all of this. And by the way,
Speaker 1: the author of the New York Times bestseller his second
Speaker 1: biggest selling book, Trump's America, The Truth about our Nation's
Speaker 1: Great Comeback. Uh, congratulations. It seems like everybody wants your
Speaker 1: insight into the mind of Donald Trump, but no in
Speaker 1: this way because you get to filter it through the
Speaker 1: prism of your of you being a professor at heart.
Speaker 1: I've said that many times in my life, and that
Speaker 1: your knowledge of history is second to none. And you're
Speaker 1: looking at his presidency is transformative, and I totally agree
Speaker 1: with you. And Tonight's choice will be important for what
Speaker 1: ultimately becomes Donald Trump's legacy. Yeah, and I think it's
Speaker 1: important to put this in context for a second. Donald
Speaker 1: Trump tonight is going to keep his work. He was
Speaker 1: this important. People remember this after all the griping in
Speaker 1: the liberal media that the fact is Trump campaigned on
Speaker 1: appointing conservative judges. He has consistently now for almost two years,
Speaker 1: appointed conservative judges. He had a list that was developed
Speaker 1: with the help of the Heritage Foundation, in the Federalist
Speaker 1: Society and Leonard Leo of really solid jurists who would
Speaker 1: make great Supreme Court nominees. Uh. He picked uh Neo
Speaker 1: Gorcas off that secular list. I'm confidence and that whoever
Speaker 1: he picks, this is important thing. Remember to be honest.
Speaker 1: The great thing is it the right person? Is it
Speaker 1: the perfect person? Are there are three things that somebody
Speaker 1: doesn't like about him? But the key is this is
Speaker 1: going to be a solid conservative. It's going to be
Speaker 1: one more step towards our returning the courts to interpreting
Speaker 1: the Constitution instead of rewriting it. Uh. And that's an
Speaker 1: amazing achievement. And this is one of the great achievements
Speaker 1: of the the Trump presidency. And tonight, Uh, you know, I
Speaker 1: agree with you. He personally loves the idea that he
Speaker 1: wants to tease everybody so that we all tune in
Speaker 1: at nine o'clock to see what he did. And candidly,
Speaker 1: I'm going to tune in a class. I think the
Speaker 1: president it is not it is absolutely within him, and
Speaker 1: I think he's done it many times. And you can
Speaker 1: back me up on this. Oh, he has no problem
Speaker 1: trolling people, knowing and building anticipation for what will be
Speaker 1: a historic decision. But there's also the predictable attacks at
Speaker 1: doesn't matter, Mr Speaker, who he chooses. The borking begins
Speaker 1: the second after America. The left will go after anybody
Speaker 1: he puts up there. Look like they actually one interview
Speaker 1: of students who hated Trump's nominee even though he hadn't
Speaker 1: been named yet. Oh, by the way, they hate the nominee.
Speaker 1: I have the tape. I'd play it, but it's three minutes.
Speaker 1: That's hilarious. I don't want to take the time away
Speaker 1: from you. But you're right, they all hated it. But
Speaker 1: it's not been picked yet, right, and and I think
Speaker 1: we just have to recognize. But on the left, and
Speaker 1: they're right. I mean, if you want a radical judge
Speaker 1: who rewrites the Constitution to replace America with a radical society,
Speaker 1: you aren't gonna like who. I don't care who he picks.
Speaker 1: You're not gonna like him, because he's gonna pick somebody
Speaker 1: who actually thinks that the Constitution matters and that it
Speaker 1: was a contract with the American people and that we
Speaker 1: have an obligation to stick to the contract. Yeah. Well,
Speaker 1: I mean that's the amazing part that I don't think
Speaker 1: many people will focus on. Um, let me ask you specifically,
Speaker 1: do you know these candidates or have you just been
Speaker 1: like the rest of us, reading about Well, okay, so
Speaker 1: I've been reading a lot about the decision, and I
Speaker 1: find all of them very very interesting in different ways.
Speaker 1: You know, Raymond Catholics, I mean he he was involved
Speaker 1: in a lot of noteworthy cases, one on free speech
Speaker 1: where he joined a majority holding the First Protection First
Speaker 1: Amendment protected the right of Christians uh to preach at
Speaker 1: a particular Arab American festival. I mean, these are all
Speaker 1: nuanced cases. There's all there's all different variations, which makes
Speaker 1: it very hard to get a firm grasp on any
Speaker 1: one person. And I think that's why maybe there's been
Speaker 1: disappointments like David Suitor, for example, in the past. And
Speaker 1: all of these are great intellectuals that have spent their
Speaker 1: entire lives for the most part, adult lives studying the Constitution. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, I think in that sense, you have to
Speaker 1: really look at Suitor as an example of the opposite
Speaker 1: of what Trump is doing. Uh. Trump has consciously turned
Speaker 1: to great conservative scholars and asked their advice in building
Speaker 1: the list. He's then interviewed a wide range of people.
Speaker 1: Now this remember this is his second round of doing this,
Speaker 1: and he said, given a lot of thought. I know
Speaker 1: because I was with him back in the transition of
Speaker 1: Trump Tower and he was talking about the nature of
Speaker 1: shaping the Supreme Court, the burden particularly if he gets
Speaker 1: more than two choices of doing the right thing with
Speaker 1: the right kind of scholars, because once you appoint them,
Speaker 1: they're beyond your control. So you do you'd better have
Speaker 1: some deep gut instinct of who they are. And I
Speaker 1: think that Suitor was the classic example of being too
Speaker 1: clever and pointing somebody who had no track record, and
Speaker 1: then it turned out he really did have no track record.
Speaker 1: There was no base on who he was, and so
Speaker 1: he drifted into the liberal majority because you know, that's
Speaker 1: what the Georgetown cocktail party said wanted. But I think
Speaker 1: I think you know true Rump's not going to pick
Speaker 1: a person of that kind, and I think any conservatives
Speaker 1: my other point, I guess, if I can just say
Speaker 1: it for a second, every conservative country to night at
Speaker 1: nine o'clock, close your eyes for thirty seconds before the
Speaker 1: president starts to talk, and imagine it was Hillary Clinton
Speaker 1: with her second radical nominee. And then tell me how
Speaker 1: why you're gonna be upset with Donald Trump about anything.
Speaker 1: He is so much better than what we were faced with.
Speaker 1: But there's also a political reality that I think has
Speaker 1: to factor into any in this president's decision, and that
Speaker 1: is the close nature of the Senate, and that is,
Speaker 1: you know, nine, John McCain is ill um. He's got
Speaker 1: a threat of needle where you don't where people like
Speaker 1: Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski don't oppose the the nominee,
Speaker 1: and people like Rampaul and Ted Cruz on the other
Speaker 1: side don't oppose the nominee. So either that or the
Speaker 1: not or we're gonna go through a process where it's
Speaker 1: extraordinarily painful and meaning that it's gonna be one nominee
Speaker 1: withdraw the nomination, the nominee withdraws, then the next one,
Speaker 1: then the next one, and it's never gonna end. So
Speaker 1: there are political realities to the president's decision that probably
Speaker 1: nobody wants to discuss publicly. Well. But I also think,
Speaker 1: and he said a little bit himself, he's gotten much
Speaker 1: smarter about the legislative branch. I thought it was very
Speaker 1: noteworthy they began consulting with senators immediately upon the announcement
Speaker 1: of the retirement. Uh and I think that he is
Speaker 1: very you know, he's trying to parse out two things.
Speaker 1: One are there a couple of Democrats who are in
Speaker 1: such trouble from reelection that they probably can get their vote?
Speaker 1: And two, um, is there a way to find a
Speaker 1: person who will satisfy Collins and Rakowski, who I think
Speaker 1: are probably the bigger challenges. I think in the end,
Speaker 1: Rand Paul and and Uh Crews are going to vote
Speaker 1: for the president's nominee, but particularly shocked if Crews didn't,
Speaker 1: just because he is himself a great lawyer, he understands
Speaker 1: what this is all about. Rand is a little less predictable.
Speaker 1: But in the end, this is a chance to move
Speaker 1: the court back to the constitution. Con Certainly, everything that
Speaker 1: Rand Paul and his father have sent for has been
Speaker 1: talking about getting back to a constitutional framework and this
Speaker 1: this uh, this choice, I believe whichever of the four
Speaker 1: that it is, or even if he drops in the
Speaker 1: fifth l Off who's also on the list by the way, um,
Speaker 1: you know, I think I think that these will be
Speaker 1: people that in the end they can say, you know,
Speaker 1: I really respect him. Now, the other part of this
Speaker 1: is whoever they take is gonna have to go through
Speaker 1: a set of hearings and be prepared to stand up
Speaker 1: to a knockdown, drag out fight with left wing Democrats.
Speaker 1: And but I think that'll be good for the country.
Speaker 1: That will be very educational for the American people. I
Speaker 1: actually agree with that. One of the most interesting things
Speaker 1: if anybody's ever taken the time to actually you can't
Speaker 1: see them. We don't allow cameras inside the Supreme in
Speaker 1: corporate you can't hear specific arguments before the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: I think it's one of the most fascinating things in
Speaker 1: the world to listen to. I mean, you might have
Speaker 1: a person for against the particular case, they get out
Speaker 1: two words and and immediately the justices begin grilling them.
Speaker 1: I mean Scalia was you know, so well known for
Speaker 1: his humor and his temperament and his tough questioning. And
Speaker 1: on the other hand, Clarence Thomas usually just remains quiet
Speaker 1: and he takes it all in and outcomes his decision,
Speaker 1: and it has become one of the the great Supreme
Speaker 1: Court justices in our time. In my opinion, why is
Speaker 1: there so much anger? And it seems that the greater
Speaker 1: amount of hostility is towards Judge Barrett um Amy Barrett.
Speaker 1: And you know, for example, they quoted a speech she
Speaker 1: gave in two thousand and six to Notre Dame Graduates
Speaker 1: that your legal career is but a means to an end,
Speaker 1: and the end is building the Kingdom of God. And
Speaker 1: she had a big, knockdown, drag out fight with Diane
Speaker 1: Feinstein last year when she was appointed to the Seventh
Speaker 1: Circuit Court of Appeal and Feinstein pressing our on whether
Speaker 1: she would be able to render judicial rulings faithful to
Speaker 1: the law given her deeply held religious beliefs. I mean,
Speaker 1: it seems like they almost want a religious lipust test
Speaker 1: in in her case, she was a strong Catholic. Since
Speaker 1: you do realize, of course, if if they's exactly the
Speaker 1: same phrase have been said by a Muslim that anybody
Speaker 1: who criticized it would be of course described as a homophobic.
Speaker 1: But we don't have in our current political language, uh,
Speaker 1: anything for Christian folks, which is what we're talking about.
Speaker 1: Tell about people who are deeply resistance to the role
Speaker 1: of God in American life, which is you know, if
Speaker 1: I've written a clisson, I wrote a book onto a
Speaker 1: movie about I mean, you can't describe America without understanding
Speaker 1: that we claim from the very beginning that our rights
Speaker 1: come from our creator. And of course on the left,
Speaker 1: this is this is forbidden language. Uh. She was, by
Speaker 1: the way, um, in particular debate, she did a great
Speaker 1: job defending herself and educating the country, if not the senator,
Speaker 1: but but but but I think the deeper point here
Speaker 1: is if you were a left wing secular woman who
Speaker 1: is rapidly pro abortion, then she is your worst nightmare.
Speaker 1: She's she's a mother, and she has seven children. She
Speaker 1: is a Notre Dame graduate, she's a pound, she's a
Speaker 1: devout Catholic, she's overtly pro life. Um, and so she
Speaker 1: violates every single requirement of the new modern left wing.
Speaker 1: Uh you know, uh, secular socialists, it's about judicial philosophy.
Speaker 1: We believe in the Constitution as the basis for all
Speaker 1: rule of law, and that is what is known as
Speaker 1: an originalist versus the If Hillary were president, which I
Speaker 1: think is a very important thing to remember, this would
Speaker 1: be her second choice. And they believe in judicial division,
Speaker 1: the things that they would never pass legislatively, the things
Speaker 1: that would never get them elected at the ballot box.
Speaker 1: And they're even willing to cite foreign law, believe it
Speaker 1: or not, not our Constitution and as the basis to
Speaker 1: make radical decisions. And remember it's not just judicial activism
Speaker 1: in a random sense. These are left wingers who have
Speaker 1: a secular vision of a particular American future, which requires
Speaker 1: that they crush and drive out of the public square
Speaker 1: anybody who believes in the classical vision of America. And
Speaker 1: so that's why you get this sort of uh to
Speaker 1: tolitary and bullying and the hostility and the things you're
Speaker 1: seeing in the streets. I mean, these are people who
Speaker 1: are desperate to impose their will on the rest of us,
Speaker 1: and they're watching it start to slip away, and it's
Speaker 1: driving them crazy. You know. That is the point. The
Speaker 1: President is going to be in Europe this week in Brussels.
Speaker 1: He's gonna ask NATO to step up and pay their
Speaker 1: fair share, just like I think the UN should pay
Speaker 1: their fair share. Um, and every buddies up in arms
Speaker 1: about that. Then there are going to be European left
Speaker 1: wing socialist protest against him. I'm sure the left wing
Speaker 1: media will love that in this country. And meanwhile, we
Speaker 1: have record low unemployment in fourteen states, record low unemployment
Speaker 1: for women for Hispanic Americans African Americans, and the highest
Speaker 1: labor participation rate that we've ever had in history. And
Speaker 1: the president is making progress with North Korea and he
Speaker 1: wants peace with Putin. We doesn't want to have a
Speaker 1: war with Vladimir Putin, as if that's a bad thing.
Speaker 1: You know, you ought to for your TV show, have
Speaker 1: somebody to go back to the archives and pull up
Speaker 1: the size of the anti Reagan demonstrations in eighty one
Speaker 1: and eighty two and eighty three in particularly in Germany
Speaker 1: but also in London. Uh, because it's easy to forget
Speaker 1: every time you get a strong American conservative as president
Speaker 1: who actually stands up for the United States and actually
Speaker 1: represents freedom, the European left goes crazy. But this is
Speaker 1: I mean, this puts Trump in my judgment, uh. In
Speaker 1: in pretty good company. I mean, if you uh, you know,
Speaker 1: and and I think you'll probably have smaller crowds. And
Speaker 1: Reagan gut because in the in the old days, the
Speaker 1: Soiviet Union actually financed the stuff. The KGB used to
Speaker 1: pay for a lot of the anti war demonstrations, who
Speaker 1: were in effect pro Soviet demonstrations, but they were huge
Speaker 1: demonstrations in the early age. They were all right, what
Speaker 1: do you think of Kavanaugh? Kavanaugh? The only thing people
Speaker 1: seem to be mad at our commons he made in
Speaker 1: ninety eight that he said he was wrong about in
Speaker 1: two thousand and nine. Is it related to Clinton and
Speaker 1: impeachment and possible obstruction and the other thing is his
Speaker 1: view and a decision that he was involved in as
Speaker 1: it relates to Obamacare and justifying the laws attacks which
Speaker 1: by the way, was sold as not being attacks. But
Speaker 1: he seems to have been the front runner up until
Speaker 1: at least this weekend. Well, I mean, I'm look, I'm
Speaker 1: not a lawyer, and I'm I'm starting not a scholar
Speaker 1: on the you know what, You're right, You're not really
Speaker 1: that smart. You're right, Why don't I want to ask
Speaker 1: you that us no, no is gonna be I have
Speaker 1: enormous trust in Leonard Leo and in the team he
Speaker 1: has built at the Federalist Society. Uh. They all believe
Speaker 1: that any of these four, any of them, will be
Speaker 1: a tremendous improvement over Justice Kennedy and will help solidify
Speaker 1: a constitutionalist Supreme Court for the next thirty years. Alright,
Speaker 1: new Gearge, I gotta let you go. We will see
Speaker 1: you on TV later this week. Trump's America, the truth
Speaker 1: about our nation's great comeback in the four now until
Speaker 1: the top of the hour, one Shawn is our number.
Speaker 1: The President at nine oh one thirty PM tonight Eastern
Speaker 1: time six oh one thirty on the West Coast, will
Speaker 1: be announcing his pick to replace Judge Anthony Kennedy on
Speaker 1: the U. S. Supreme Court. The leading candidates, I'm not
Speaker 1: going with the speculation of everybody. Um. Look, you never
Speaker 1: know when you make a choice like this because you
Speaker 1: don't ask specific questions. You can't ask a anybody that
Speaker 1: might be a potential choice where they stand on particular
Speaker 1: issues that is not particularly ethical. There are five candidates
Speaker 1: as of now, one being, of course, Amy Cony Barrett
Speaker 1: of Indiana, Thomas Hardeman of Pennsylvania, Brett Kavanaugh, who seemed
Speaker 1: to have been the front runner up until the end
Speaker 1: of last week. Uh Ray Catledge is also from Michigan.
Speaker 1: Uh Kavanaugh, by the way, the US Court of Appeals
Speaker 1: District of Columbia, and another name that has been thrown
Speaker 1: out recently, Judge Joan Larson. Uh also recently confirms six
Speaker 1: Circuit Court of Appeals. And Jay Sekulo is with the
Speaker 1: American Center for Law Injustice is their chief council. He's
Speaker 1: also the council to the President. And yeah, he's even
Speaker 1: had little o Me as a client. Um listen, let
Speaker 1: me ask you. So I'm looking at this list. I
Speaker 1: have no idea who the president is going to pick.
Speaker 1: All I know is this, I want somebody in the
Speaker 1: vein of a Justice Scalia or justin Justice Thomas, who
Speaker 1: is what we call a constitutionalist or an originalist. I
Speaker 1: don't believe in judicial activism like the left does. I
Speaker 1: don't believe that they should site foreign law like the
Speaker 1: left does. I don't think they should legislate from the bench,
Speaker 1: separation of powers, coequal branches a government, etcetera. But I
Speaker 1: do believe whoever gets picked, they're going to try to
Speaker 1: bork them and destroy them and do what they did
Speaker 1: to not only Robert Borke but also Clarence Thomas. I
Speaker 1: think that is inevitable in this atmosphere. I think that's right.
Speaker 1: But look, you you hit the key issue, Sean, and
Speaker 1: that is the most important question is not how it
Speaker 1: judge rules on a particular case. Judge Ginsburg, then ultimately
Speaker 1: Justice Ginsburg made a statement and I think she was
Speaker 1: absolutely correct on this when she said she's not going
Speaker 1: to discuss how she might rule on a particular case
Speaker 1: that could come before her. So that's the right answer.
Speaker 1: But you want to know what their judicial philosophy is.
Speaker 1: How do they view their role as judge? Uh Salia
Speaker 1: famously said that, you know, a good judge is going
Speaker 1: to sometimes come to a conclusion that they don't personally like,
Speaker 1: but it's what the law demands. So you want that
Speaker 1: kind of uh you know, direct I would call it
Speaker 1: a direct sense of their judicial philosophy as it relates
Speaker 1: to their role as a judge. How do they view
Speaker 1: themselves in our constitutional uh framework? How do we in
Speaker 1: our constitutional republic? They're an Article three branch of government.
Speaker 1: How do they view that role? And that's that goes
Speaker 1: to separation of powers. It goes to uh issues of
Speaker 1: judicial restraint. It it goes to judicial philosophy, how they
Speaker 1: view how they view the role. So that to me
Speaker 1: is always the key. And then then I don't think
Speaker 1: we've ever had. I don't I'm trying to think where
Speaker 1: we ever had in our history a president that pre
Speaker 1: announced people on a list while he was running for president,
Speaker 1: and updated the list while he was president, and kept
Speaker 1: that list out there so people could do all the
Speaker 1: kind of opposition research they wanted to do. But this
Speaker 1: president did that, and he said he's gonna take someone
Speaker 1: from the list, and I suspect that's what it will
Speaker 1: be in a couple of hours. Um, So the main
Speaker 1: thing here is to me is that the president. You know,
Speaker 1: one of the things that is why this is an
Speaker 1: imperfect science. People were asking me this weekend. Why is
Speaker 1: it that Republican presidents often in court tell us that
Speaker 1: they're gonna pick a an originalist, the constitutionalist, somebody that believes,
Speaker 1: as as Judge Scalia, you know, one set as you
Speaker 1: rightly point out, that he may actually have to rule
Speaker 1: a certain way that is against his own personal views.
Speaker 1: But what the law demands, Um, why is it sometimes
Speaker 1: Republicans get it wrong, but it seems democratic presidents never
Speaker 1: get it wrong. They always get the judicial activists that
Speaker 1: they wanted. Because do you ever have to question with
Speaker 1: someone that's being nominated by Democrats whether in fact there
Speaker 1: where they stand on the life issue for instance? I mean,
Speaker 1: does anybody seriously question will you will that person uphold
Speaker 1: ROVERSUS way? But if you take a contrary view, there
Speaker 1: are people that view that as a disqualifier from public
Speaker 1: service on Supreme Court. I think that's sad and tragic.
Speaker 1: Let's just have consequences. Presidents get to nominate. That's what
Speaker 1: what the article article to power the President is. They
Speaker 1: get to nominate. The Senate gets advice and consent to
Speaker 1: separate functions, they can weigh in, and then they can
Speaker 1: vote yes or no. And then if that nominee is
Speaker 1: successful in getting confirmed, they get their authority from Article three.
Speaker 1: So when you have a Supreme Court pick, it puts
Speaker 1: into place all three branches of our government and all
Speaker 1: three articles of our United States Constitution. There are certain
Speaker 1: political considerations that I don't think a lot of people
Speaker 1: are really factoring in here. I mean, with John McCain
Speaker 1: being sick, nor is he a particularly reliable vote for
Speaker 1: the president at this point in his career. That the
Speaker 1: president must also recognize that he needs Lisa Murkowski of Alaska,
Speaker 1: he needs Susan Collins of Maine. He needs Rand Paul
Speaker 1: of Kentucky on the other side, and and Ted Crews
Speaker 1: of Texas. So it's a fine line at the and
Speaker 1: a raiser's edge here politically that the president is walking
Speaker 1: because whoever he does pick, he doesn't want to have
Speaker 1: to either withdraw their nomination or have have this voted
Speaker 1: down in the Senate, And so that becomes somewhat problematic
Speaker 1: for him. As you look at these top four maybe
Speaker 1: five names that we're hearing, is there any one person
Speaker 1: that you think threads that needle? Um? And the other
Speaker 1: big issue that I love you to addresses. You know,
Speaker 1: a lot of these judges, they're great intellectuals. They're writing
Speaker 1: about the greatest document ever created, our Constitution, And there's
Speaker 1: a lot of nuance, there's a lot of intellectualism. Um,
Speaker 1: there's a big judicial philosophy disagreement on originalism versus judicial activism.
Speaker 1: Right now, Look, Sean, you're hitting the issues that are
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm gonna be with you tonight and uh,
Speaker 1: you know, we'll know then who the nominee is. But
Speaker 1: I will tell you this, all of the people on
Speaker 1: the list, but the one the names that you've raised, Um,
Speaker 1: every one of those would meet the right tiior of
Speaker 1: conservative judicial philosophy, respect for the rule of law, understanding
Speaker 1: the role of the spring cot plays under our constitution.
Speaker 1: And I think without question, would UM support the proposition
Speaker 1: that judges do not make law. Now, having said that,
Speaker 1: let me just this is the politics of it. Is
Speaker 1: it easier for some than others? It probably is, And
Speaker 1: that political calculation has to be made by the president
Speaker 1: when he because you want the nominee to be confirmed,
Speaker 1: can that person be confirmed to that high office? So
Speaker 1: that's you can't ignore that reality, especially you know it's
Speaker 1: gone or the days when Justice Scalia received I think
Speaker 1: votes and Justice getberg N those days are gone. Everything
Speaker 1: is now very partisan. Um. But having said that, I
Speaker 1: think you again, that's part of the calculation. You can't
Speaker 1: ignore it because you ignored it your own peril. We
Speaker 1: don't want a situation actually that judge, the late Judge
Speaker 1: Bork faced. We don't want a situation that Justice Thomas
Speaker 1: had a go through to be confirmed. You want a straightforward,
Speaker 1: tough process. I I no one doubts that that that
Speaker 1: should be thorough. And then but look, the presidents let
Speaker 1: these people be out there preventing purposes for over some
Speaker 1: of them for over a year and a half, and
Speaker 1: so there's no real surprises there at this point. They've
Speaker 1: read everything there is to read about them. But you'll
Speaker 1: hear noises. There's gonna be a lot of noise. Look
Speaker 1: at nine o one will know the announcement. At nine
Speaker 1: or two the other side, Uh well, both sides will
Speaker 1: go to work on the either defending the nominee or
Speaker 1: or whatever the next role would be. I mean, that's
Speaker 1: just kind of the nature of what happens. Having said that, again,
Speaker 1: what we're looking for is someone that has a conservative
Speaker 1: judicial philosophy, and I'm convinced that's what we're gonna receive tonight.
Speaker 1: Why is it? And I've been watching and reading everything
Speaker 1: about every one of these judges, which I spent a
Speaker 1: lot of time earlier in the program talking about. I
Speaker 1: think the person that interests me the most is Judge
Speaker 1: Amy Barrett, and yet she seems to be the most
Speaker 1: hated and the most like by conservatives. At this particular point.
Speaker 1: And you know she's a Catholic. She has seven kids,
Speaker 1: she's adopted a number of kids. Um. She only recently
Speaker 1: was put on the US Court of Appeals for the
Speaker 1: seventh District. Um, she had a big showdown in confrontation
Speaker 1: with Senator Diane Feinstein. And yeah, I mean it seems
Speaker 1: that the fact her religious views seemed to be in
Speaker 1: play big time. UM. And I think there's a certain
Speaker 1: level of just vitriol and intensity against her y because
Speaker 1: of what you said, because of her faith. I mean,
Speaker 1: she's someone that takes her faith seriously. She's about Catholic,
Speaker 1: she is. Uh, she is a person that has well,
Speaker 1: she doesn't have extensive judicial opinions because she's only been
Speaker 1: on the court for seven months. She has extensive academic
Speaker 1: writings and she was a very well respected law professor
Speaker 1: at UM at Notre Dame Law School. She trained under
Speaker 1: the great Charlie Rice, late Professor Charlie Rice, who was
Speaker 1: on our legal advisory board at the A C l
Speaker 1: J for decades. And Um, she's brilliant. Um, the calculus
Speaker 1: will be and the president makes that calculus with his
Speaker 1: media advisors. They make a calculus asked to confirmability and
Speaker 1: issues like that, and she's denominee that because they're convinced
Speaker 1: that they can get her confirmed. By the way, if
Speaker 1: she's not the nominee doesn't doesn't mean she's not going
Speaker 1: to be confirmed. It just means that there were other
Speaker 1: considerations and maybe it was lent the time on the bench.
Speaker 1: I don't know. We'll see who the nominee is and
Speaker 1: we'll be able to know, but she is certainly somebody
Speaker 1: that galvanizes UM a lot of support, in part because
Speaker 1: the way she was so uh dehemently attacked and kept
Speaker 1: her composure in her dignity during the process. It seems
Speaker 1: that the front runner, at least leading up to today,
Speaker 1: had been uh Judge Brett Kavanaugh, and he's got some
Speaker 1: very interesting cases. I mean, he was involved in the
Speaker 1: Heller versus District of Columbia case in eleven and he
Speaker 1: ended up being on the right side of that case.
Speaker 1: He descended Havanaugh's words, the Supreme Court left quote little
Speaker 1: doubt the courts are to assess gun bands and regulations
Speaker 1: based on text history, tradition, not by a balancing test
Speaker 1: such as a strict intermediate intermediate scrutiny, but then again
Speaker 1: there was you know, some criticism over over his decisions.
Speaker 1: There were two of them as it relates to Obamacare. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and one of them was mine, I mean was the case.
Speaker 1: And I when I've known Bread for a long time
Speaker 1: and was helped on the confirmation to the DC Court
Speaker 1: of Appeals, were working with him in private practice. He
Speaker 1: not a couple of our religious liberty cases. He he
Speaker 1: worked on as a lawyer, So he's he's got I mean,
Speaker 1: I think on the religious liberty issues he would be
Speaker 1: and is great judicial philosophy on that understands of pre
Speaker 1: exercise free speech clauses. What about the decision, and I
Speaker 1: believe it was the yeah, yeah, Well, in the case,
Speaker 1: he would have held that the a c. A complied
Speaker 1: with the clause of the Constitution that requires all bills
Speaker 1: for raising revenue to originate in the House of Representatives
Speaker 1: because the statutes in clause. Yeah. But but what was
Speaker 1: interesting about that it actually held up Obamacare and the
Speaker 1: argument that it was at tax, but we were sold
Speaker 1: that it was not a tax. Yeah. So I mean,
Speaker 1: this was an issue that looked that was in my case,
Speaker 1: but I had we had in front of him, and
Speaker 1: he he did not redress the merits of the constitute
Speaker 1: sotionality of Obamacare that's been misreported. What do you addressed
Speaker 1: was whether the Anti Injunction Act passing UH prohibited a
Speaker 1: proceeding where it was a pre enforcement in other words,
Speaker 1: of plumbinary injunction and injunction to stop the enforcement of
Speaker 1: attacks and the statute on that. I raised this with
Speaker 1: our team early on because as you know, shall my
Speaker 1: background is I came out of Chief Council's Office for
Speaker 1: Treasury to the I R S. I was a travel
Speaker 1: lawyer for a Chief Council's office, and um, I was
Speaker 1: concerned about the issue of the tax um in the
Speaker 1: Anti Injunction Act and that's ultimately where he went. So
Speaker 1: I don't think it was I mean, I don't think
Speaker 1: it was a way it's being portrayed is accurate. And um, well, look,
Speaker 1: you always want to win your case. It wasn't an
Speaker 1: inconceivable conclusion that he came up with something that speaks.
Speaker 1: And actually some could argue that's a conservative decision because
Speaker 1: you don't overreach when you don't have when you don't
Speaker 1: have statutory authority. We'll take a quick break, we'll come
Speaker 1: back more with J Seculo on the other side, eight
Speaker 1: D nine one, Shawn is our toll free telephone number. Uh.
Speaker 1: Then at the top of the hour, way of the
Speaker 1: latest breaking news on the deep State gate and Page
Speaker 1: and Struck testifying later this week, and apparently there's gonna
Speaker 1: be two big bombshell news reports coming. So my sources
Speaker 1: tell me much more. Right, as we continue with Jay Secular,
Speaker 1: Chief Council American Center for Law and Justice, also Council
Speaker 1: to the President, let me ask, this is an imperfect
Speaker 1: science in a large part, and I want you to
Speaker 1: address this side of it because by and large, if
Speaker 1: you're being considered for the Supreme Court, um, you're an intellectual.
Speaker 1: You this you are deep. You're deep in the weeds
Speaker 1: as it relates to constitutional law. And when you read decisions,
Speaker 1: you know, on the surface, maybe the outcome is based
Speaker 1: on an entirely different way of thinking that most Americans
Speaker 1: would understand. But again we're looking towards judicial philosophy. There
Speaker 1: there are nuances to some decisions and to most decisions. Yeah, yeah, so,
Speaker 1: and part of that part of that nuance this you
Speaker 1: call that, I think that's a good term, is that
Speaker 1: they're ports of of limited jurisdiction in one sense, and
Speaker 1: that they don't reach two issues that they're not supposed
Speaker 1: to hit, uh if they've got a conservative judicial philosophy,
Speaker 1: so they don't overstretch. And part of that process is
Speaker 1: an understanding that when you're looking at this that what
Speaker 1: you're dealing with is a how what you want to
Speaker 1: know is how does the judge view their job? How
Speaker 1: do they view their role as a judge, And that
Speaker 1: really becomes the critical aspect of all of this. How
Speaker 1: do they view their role as a judge that they
Speaker 1: call involves and strikes? Were they coming up with policy
Speaker 1: that they like? If their policy oriented that they should
Speaker 1: be running for legislature for the presidency, they shouldn't be running.
Speaker 1: They should not be nominated as a judge. That's not
Speaker 1: their role. So that's where it becomes very very important. Okay,
Speaker 1: And so I guess at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: as we look at the names, and again I think
Speaker 1: you're rightly pointing out a very important point. There's never
Speaker 1: been a president that has actually given a specific list
Speaker 1: of names and sticks to the list of names that
Speaker 1: he has been telegraphing now since before he got elected.
Speaker 1: Um So in that sense, there won't be any surprises.
Speaker 1: Are you confident at the end of the day that
Speaker 1: we're going to get somebody like an Aledo, like a
Speaker 1: Clarence Thomas or Scalia on the Supreme Court? In this choice?
Speaker 1: I think on the that entire list are individuals of
Speaker 1: impeccable credentials with conservative judicial philosophies, and I think we
Speaker 1: should be comfortable with anybody on that list, and I
Speaker 1: expect that tonight will be very pleased with who the
Speaker 1: nominee is. Again, it's ultimately there's one thing that's very
Speaker 1: clear about Article two. This is the president's choice. It's
Speaker 1: not the Federalist Society, is not Leonard Leo, it's not
Speaker 1: Herita's Foundation, Kay James, is not the American Center for
Speaker 1: Low Injustice, and Jay secularly, this is the president's choice.
Speaker 1: All right, Jay Secular, thank you for being with us.
Speaker 1: When we come back, we have a lot of breaking
Speaker 1: news as it relates coming this week with a deep steak,
Speaker 1: Greg Jared, Sarah Carter. And next, if they don't give
Speaker 1: you that information, what can you do to the f
Speaker 1: behind d J. You've given them more to lines now
Speaker 1: we had yesterday. They were supposed to give us stuff
Speaker 1: now maybe Monday or Tuesday. This investigation has been going
Speaker 1: on for a year. At some point, don't you guys
Speaker 1: feel impotent. Well, look, there's a couple of couple of
Speaker 1: things here, So before July thirty one. For for a
Speaker 1: couple of months now, we've been really zeroing in on that,
Speaker 1: and the FBI d o J have had plenty of
Speaker 1: opportunities to tell us what happened before July one, but
Speaker 1: they have they have not, They have not, they have not. Now, ultimately,
Speaker 1: here the President of the United States, it's his d
Speaker 1: o J and his FBI, and at some point here
Speaker 1: he needs to get involved. You know, I don't know.
Speaker 1: The FISA is very frustrating to me because I think
Speaker 1: that pieces of the FISA that was gone on Carter
Speaker 1: Carter page right, that we've had an ongoing feud about
Speaker 1: this for many, many months. I think the FIS is
Speaker 1: totally fraudulent, fraudulent. You have James Comey and others at
Speaker 1: currently at the FBI d o J who are defending
Speaker 1: the FISA, which is unbelievable to me. So why not
Speaker 1: the President ought to just solve this once and for
Speaker 1: all declassified, don't you don't have to expose sources and methods,
Speaker 1: but most of that visa, the pertinent parts of it,
Speaker 1: could be declassified and he could help answer for all
Speaker 1: of us who was telling the truth or were they
Speaker 1: justified to get a FISA warrant on Carter page or not.
Speaker 1: I don't think they were, and I think the American
Speaker 1: people have a right to know, and the President should
Speaker 1: classify all right, News round up in Information overlo an
Speaker 1: hour one Seawan. That was Devin Newness of the House
Speaker 1: Intel Committee on with Judge Jannine on Saturday night, saying, yeah,
Speaker 1: forty two people now involved with the Russia probe. Uh, yeah,
Speaker 1: they should be interviewed in public. Also, at some point,
Speaker 1: the President's gonna have to get involved and demand that
Speaker 1: the d o J, which he has full authority to do,
Speaker 1: release all of these documents. And once he puts that
Speaker 1: deadline out, they will not have an option at that
Speaker 1: point or they will be literally defying the president who
Speaker 1: has authority. This is we're talking about the executive branch now.
Speaker 1: And uh, lastly, it's noon as talking about the President
Speaker 1: needing to declassify the FISA documents, which would give us
Speaker 1: great insight as to how they justified an unverified, uncorroborated
Speaker 1: political document using Russian sources that was paid for. Even
Speaker 1: the person to put it together says was fifty fifty
Speaker 1: at best. Uh ended up being the the basis or
Speaker 1: the bulk of information to get a warrant to spy
Speaker 1: on an opposition party candidate and lead up to an election.
Speaker 1: It all matters, all right, Glad you're with us for one.
Speaker 1: Shawn is our number. We're still following the president. At
Speaker 1: nine oh one thirty tonight, right when Hannity gets on
Speaker 1: the air, will announce his Supreme Court justice to replace
Speaker 1: Anthony Kennedy. I'm not gonna go with all the speculation
Speaker 1: with all the people that's has chosen that because the
Speaker 1: President had diverted the last time. And I think it
Speaker 1: still comes down to the five candidates that I've been
Speaker 1: talking about well pretty much all day, and that's Amy
Speaker 1: Cony Barrett and Thomas Hardeman, Brett Kavanaugh, Raymond catholicch and
Speaker 1: Judge Joan Larson. But first we continue the deep state
Speaker 1: issue is going to hit a lot of new ground
Speaker 1: this week, as both Lisa Page and Peter Struck testify
Speaker 1: Yeah publicly. Well, in the case of Lisa Page behind
Speaker 1: closed doors, but struck publicly for the first time. And then,
Speaker 1: of course we have the President with NATO as I mentioned,
Speaker 1: and we're gonna be doing the show from Europe later
Speaker 1: in the week, UM and the expected protests there. We
Speaker 1: have a busy newsweeks joining us, Greg Jarrett. We are
Speaker 1: now two weeks away from the release of the Russia Hoax.
Speaker 1: The Illicit Scheme to clear Hillary Clinton and frame Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: By the way, available for pre sale on Amazon dot Com.
Speaker 1: This will become the definitive book on what is the
Speaker 1: biggest corruption abuse of power scandal in history. Sarah Carter
Speaker 1: is an investigative reporter Fox News contributor. UM. All right,
Speaker 1: so we have a new poll that shows a majority
Speaker 1: of American Sarah no longer support the Muller probe. We
Speaker 1: have new FBI m O suggesting that Mueller may have
Speaker 1: illegally leaked grand jury material that's in reference to the
Speaker 1: Mantaphor case. We have Julianni saying he suspects Mueller is
Speaker 1: covering up anti Trump text messages that have been sent
Speaker 1: by his prosecution team. And Julianni calling the Muller probe
Speaker 1: the most corrupt investigation he's ever seen. And now we
Speaker 1: have forty two people, as we just turned from Devin Newness,
Speaker 1: that need to go before the public and make some explanations.
Speaker 1: This case is just beginning, it is, and remember this
Speaker 1: has been going on for more than a year. This
Speaker 1: is incredible, Sean. I think one of the biggest things
Speaker 1: that we're going to be looking for this week is
Speaker 1: certainly Peter struck Uh testifying publicly. He may not say anything,
Speaker 1: he may say very little, but I think it's very
Speaker 1: important to have him out there. I also think that
Speaker 1: Devin Newness is doing the right thing. He's putting out
Speaker 1: the names out there that he says need to go public.
Speaker 1: The Americans people are so tired of this because I
Speaker 1: think based on just the last year, based on the
Speaker 1: information that has come out, Americans are smart. We understand
Speaker 1: what's going on here. And that's the reason why we
Speaker 1: haven't stopped going after these stories. The reason we haven't
Speaker 1: stopped exposing what we see is blatant corruption and evidence
Speaker 1: that they were actually working against an incoming president and
Speaker 1: then a duly elected president of the United States. It's
Speaker 1: actually quite incredible, and I think what Newness is doing
Speaker 1: is saying, look, put everybody out there, let them speak publicly,
Speaker 1: and if they're not going to abide by our demands,
Speaker 1: get the BI set go ahead, Mr President, release all
Speaker 1: the documents. Let's get that out there so the American
Speaker 1: public knows once and for all what's going on. This
Speaker 1: has been going on too long, and liked Evan Noon
Speaker 1: has said, this is the president's job. He is oversight
Speaker 1: over the d o J. And if the DOJ is
Speaker 1: not going to comply, if rod Rosenstein, if Robert Mueller,
Speaker 1: if all of these people, if Attorney General Jeff Sessions
Speaker 1: does not comply with the oversight demands of Congress, then
Speaker 1: the President has the authority to declassify that and we
Speaker 1: have the right to see it. Let me go to
Speaker 1: Greg Jarrett by the way here two weeks away. I've
Speaker 1: read the book now. In total, it is the defining
Speaker 1: read on and the title captures everything, the Russia hoax,
Speaker 1: the illicit scheme to clear Hillary Clinton and frame Donald Trump. Um.
Speaker 1: There is so much coming out with the testimony now
Speaker 1: at leasta page behind closed doors. Peter struck publicly, although
Speaker 1: I hear there's some maybe some wavering going on behind
Speaker 1: the scenes, but the title captures exactly what happened. It's true.
Speaker 1: You know, top officials the highest levels of government and
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice and the FBI work together. They
Speaker 1: colluded to twist the law and make up facts and
Speaker 1: exonerate Hillary Clinton even though she clearly violated multiple UH
Speaker 1: federal statutes. And then on the very same day they
Speaker 1: cleared her. The FBI is meeting in London for the
Speaker 1: first time with the author of the dossier, and the
Speaker 1: FBI and the d o J were off to the
Speaker 1: races to try to frame Donald Trump for things he
Speaker 1: did not do. And the dossier with the lynchpin, it
Speaker 1: was phony, was fabricated from the beginning on paid a
Speaker 1: hundred to a hundred and three. I think this is
Speaker 1: going to turn out to be key. Did Brennan at
Speaker 1: the CIA? Then again, they never verified or or corroborated
Speaker 1: this and used it as the bulk of information for
Speaker 1: the dossier. But was Brennan passing this out to be
Speaker 1: used as political fodder in his role as a CIA
Speaker 1: director at the time, and you know the summer leading
Speaker 1: up to of course the FISA warrant. Yes, you're you're
Speaker 1: absolutely correct. You you're write about it in the book,
Speaker 1: page one hundred. It begins, Brennan is the instag gator.
Speaker 1: He gets his hands early on on this phony dossier,
Speaker 1: and he decides this is what we can use to
Speaker 1: destroy Trump. So he's running all over Capitol Hill and
Speaker 1: in particularly goes over to Harry Reid's office and on
Speaker 1: August twenty five, and I believe he shows read this
Speaker 1: document and convince his read we've heard, do we have
Speaker 1: the exact proof on it? Because we've been hearing about
Speaker 1: this from the beginning. We know Read leaked to the
Speaker 1: media a letter he sent to Comey on August two
Speaker 1: thousand and sixteen, and in it he alleges Trump is
Speaker 1: colluding with Russia and he's asking Comy to investigate Trump.
Speaker 1: He look read already knew that the FBI had launched
Speaker 1: uh an investigation of Trump, but he wanted it to
Speaker 1: get leaked out to the media to destroy Trump before
Speaker 1: the election. So let's go through the details of the Sarah.
Speaker 1: This is the Clinton and the d n C money
Speaker 1: which Donna Brazil said that Hillary controls Hillary campaign d
Speaker 1: n C money she controls funneled through Perkins Cooee, a
Speaker 1: law firm, onto Fusion GPS and not research firm, which
Speaker 1: by the way, is fine op researches, you know, something
Speaker 1: that we see every day in politics. And then it's
Speaker 1: they hire Christopher Steele. I think I didn't think foreign
Speaker 1: agents were supposed to be involved in the political process. Well,
Speaker 1: so much for that. And he uses his Russian sources,
Speaker 1: and we believe Russian government sources to create a phony
Speaker 1: dossier that even he in an interrogatory and Great Britain,
Speaker 1: under the threat of perjury, said was well, it's not confirmed.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's kind of fifty fifty. I don't know
Speaker 1: if it's true. That became the basis of the FISA warrant,
Speaker 1: and we had the CIA director literally feeding this to
Speaker 1: Harry Reid for political purposes. It's so dangerous, Sean, it
Speaker 1: is so dangerous to even imagine that this was happening
Speaker 1: in the United States, that a director of the CIA,
Speaker 1: which is not supposed to be involved whatsoever by edict,
Speaker 1: in the political process of US politics, basically shopping out
Speaker 1: a disinformation document by a foreign agent against an incoming
Speaker 1: president of the United States or a presidential candidate at
Speaker 1: the time, and then a duly elected incoming president of
Speaker 1: the United States. It's really unheard of. Is this any
Speaker 1: different than what the former Soviet Union would do when
Speaker 1: they propagandized and lied. Remember we always would talk about provoda,
Speaker 1: you know, state run television, state run networks, all designed
Speaker 1: to brainwash, indoctrinate, um disinform, whatever tactics a lot. Well,
Speaker 1: let's put it another way, purposely the government and government
Speaker 1: spies lying to the American people. Is that what happened
Speaker 1: in America, Sarah Carter, Exactly, That's exactly what it what
Speaker 1: it is. I mean when you look at the facts
Speaker 1: on their face, that the director of the CIA, which
Speaker 1: by the way, he you know, this former Director Brennan,
Speaker 1: has not stopped. We've seen his allegations and his disinformation
Speaker 1: on Twitter throughout the months, throughout the recent months, how
Speaker 1: he is constantly bad mouthing and going after President Trump
Speaker 1: and alluding to some kind of secret information that's out
Speaker 1: there that we've never seen, no proof whatsoever. But think
Speaker 1: of the power that this person had. They were the
Speaker 1: director of the premier intelligence agency in the world, and
Speaker 1: instead of dealing with overseas threats, instead of dealing with
Speaker 1: national security issues overseas, they were basically colluding with Russian
Speaker 1: agents and a foreign British agent to take out the
Speaker 1: President of the United States. Credible is this story, because
Speaker 1: that's really what it was. The evidence is there, and
Speaker 1: this is what everybody's not getting. And that's why Greg's
Speaker 1: book is gonna be a blockbuster bestseller and this is
Speaker 1: why you're reporting should get you a Pulitzer. Meanwhile, all
Speaker 1: I get is trashed every day in the media. So
Speaker 1: you know, I've I've got, I've got everything I deserve.
Speaker 1: It's fine, you do. Now take the glory. Um, it's
Speaker 1: about the truth though, and this is the biggest abuse
Speaker 1: of power scandal in American history, and the smoking gun
Speaker 1: evidence does exist as we continue with Greg Jarrett's new
Speaker 1: book coming out just two weeks from today, and it
Speaker 1: is the Russian hoax, the illicit scheme to clear Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton and framed Donald Trump and also Fox News investigative
Speaker 1: reporter of Sarah Carter. They've agreed to actually hang out
Speaker 1: through the next half hour as we're gonna go deeper
Speaker 1: into this because we're only beginning to touch the surface. Um. So,
Speaker 1: when Paige testifies, she's gonna be behind closed doors, but
Speaker 1: Struck is going in front of the camera and we'll
Speaker 1: see him for the first time, and from what I
Speaker 1: understand is he's in even more trouble than we suspected.
Speaker 1: Sarah Carter so much trouble, and it's incredible. At first,
Speaker 1: his attorney was openly saying, you know, he wants to
Speaker 1: testify publicly, he wants to talk to Congress, He'll be
Speaker 1: forth coming, and then we know he went behind closed
Speaker 1: doors and they were having a difficult time with him.
Speaker 1: I don't suspect and I don't know what Greg's assumption
Speaker 1: is on this that he is going to be as
Speaker 1: forth coming in front of the public. Uh, it's going
Speaker 1: to be very difficult for him because we have seen
Speaker 1: too much evidence. There's too much out there. How can
Speaker 1: he explain this away? Those text messages were very straightforward.
Speaker 1: I'm sure Greg goes into great detail in his book
Speaker 1: about them because they're explosive. I mean, he worked directly
Speaker 1: under former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and Comey. He was
Speaker 1: in London. He was central figure in the Hillary Clinton
Speaker 1: server investigation and at the top figure in the Russia investigation.
Speaker 1: His connections were wide and deep, and he was working
Speaker 1: in collusion with Lisa Page, his paramore and lover that
Speaker 1: he was having an affair with and she was an
Speaker 1: attorney at the FBI. And we also know that he
Speaker 1: had very well connected, lots of connections in London, and
Speaker 1: he was able to make things happen. So there is
Speaker 1: going to be so much more information, so many questions
Speaker 1: that Congress has of him and before the public. I
Speaker 1: think it's going to be really difficult for him to
Speaker 1: answer those, at least with the straight face. All Right,
Speaker 1: we'll take a break. We'll continue. Greg and Sarah have
Speaker 1: agreed to stay with us. Sarah Carter, investigative reporter, Fox
Speaker 1: News contributor. Greg's book out in two weeks. The Russia Hoax,
Speaker 1: The Illicits Game to Clear Hillary Clinton Framed Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: now available online Hannity dot com, Amazon dot com bookstores
Speaker 1: in two weeks. Also, we'll get Gregg's preview of tonight's
Speaker 1: big announcement, the President selects his replacement for Justice Anthony
Speaker 1: Kennedy on the Supreme Court. Quick break, right back, we'll
Speaker 1: get to your calls. Also, final half hour, straight ahead. Alright,
Speaker 1: twenty five ounces at the top of the hour. Nine
Speaker 1: phone and Sean is our toll free telephone number. We
Speaker 1: continue with Greg Jarrett's new book is coming out two
Speaker 1: weeks now from today on Hannity dot com, bookstores everywhere,
Speaker 1: Amazon dot com. And it's called The Russia Hoax, The
Speaker 1: Elicits Game to clear Hillary Clinton frame Donald Trump. Sarah Carter,
Speaker 1: investigative reporter, Fox News contributor, All right, let me just
Speaker 1: change topics briefly, and then we're gonna get back to
Speaker 1: Peter Struck here in just a second. Uh So, the
Speaker 1: President at nine oh one thirty Eastern six oh one
Speaker 1: thirty Pacific will announce his choice who he wants to
Speaker 1: replace on the Supreme Court, replace Anthony Kennedy. What are
Speaker 1: your thoughts on the names we keep hearing Greg Jarrett
Speaker 1: Well Kavanaugh, Barrett Hardeman, Larson Catholicge. Those are the contenders reportedly,
Speaker 1: and you cannot go wrong if you're Donald Trump or
Speaker 1: ardent conservative with any of them. They're all young age
Speaker 1: forty five is the youngest, Barrett all the way to
Speaker 1: fifty three. Uh, Kavanaugh and Harteman, So they'll be on
Speaker 1: the court for a long time. And they're all either
Speaker 1: proven originalists or textualists, and that is what conservatives want
Speaker 1: and need to replace, Uh Anthony Kennedy on the court.
Speaker 1: So you could put all five names up on a
Speaker 1: dartboard and throw darts and it doesn't matter where it lands.
Speaker 1: You're a winner if you're Donald. And they're all conservative
Speaker 1: confirmable people, which is important now. Having said that, some
Speaker 1: are more easily confirmed than others. For example, Hardeman, uh
Speaker 1: was confirmed for the Appellate Court ninety five to zero.
Speaker 1: So he is probably, in my judgment, the the most confirmable,
Speaker 1: the easiest confirmed. But you know who got Hardeman, Harteman
Speaker 1: to zero. Not a single vote against Harteman. And it's
Speaker 1: very hard for the U. S. Senate, although the composition
Speaker 1: is now different. Uh, it's very hard to just support
Speaker 1: him then and not now exactly exactly, which is why
Speaker 1: you know, if I'm going for the easiest pick, it's Hardeman.
Speaker 1: It's also Pennsylvania and he's also and by the way,
Speaker 1: it serves on the same court. I believe as the
Speaker 1: President's sister, Yeah, she recommended here, and uh, you know, look,
Speaker 1: I look up to my sister, uh, and you know,
Speaker 1: I think he looks up to his pig sus. I
Speaker 1: know that former Senator Santorum is a big supporter of Hardeman.
Speaker 1: When speaks volumes of of you know, I think he
Speaker 1: goes a long way. Uh, let me ask Sarah one
Speaker 1: Supreme Court question. Because you're roaming the halls of Capitol
Speaker 1: Hill constantly, what are you hearing in terms of is
Speaker 1: there any one name that keeps popping up? It had
Speaker 1: been all Kavanaugh most of last week, and now things
Speaker 1: seem to be up in the air, and nobody seems
Speaker 1: to seems to know which way the president is going
Speaker 1: to go. Well, Kavanaugh was certainly being talked about and
Speaker 1: being discussed, but I think Hardeman is a name that
Speaker 1: I'm hearing over and over again. So I think Gregg
Speaker 1: is right on the money there. Look what greg is right.
Speaker 1: Wherever they throw this start, it's going to be a
Speaker 1: win for the president and and the bigger win is
Speaker 1: his legacy. You know, call it fate, call it what
Speaker 1: you know, Justice Kennedy, did you know by stepping off
Speaker 1: the bench and allowing the president to pick a new
Speaker 1: Supreme Court justice, But he is actually building his legacy.
Speaker 1: And this is a huge legacy to build. It's a
Speaker 1: huge thing to leave behind, particularly for the Republican, for
Speaker 1: the Conservatives, and this is something that I think people
Speaker 1: have been waiting for for some time. So I think
Speaker 1: tonight when he makes this decision. If he picks Hardeman, uh,
Speaker 1: he'll have a much easier time getting him confirmed. But
Speaker 1: whoever he picks, he has definitely solidified his legacy, at
Speaker 1: least with the Supreme Court. Agree with that. Okay, Now
Speaker 1: let me move on back to our other topic, um,
Speaker 1: where there's gonna be a lot of news this week.
Speaker 1: I mean a lot of news. I know of at
Speaker 1: least two, probably three big stories that will be broken
Speaker 1: this week as it relates to Deep State Kate. And
Speaker 1: then we've got senior Justice Department prosecutor that it was
Speaker 1: Andrew Wiseman Mueller's pit pull, that in fact met with
Speaker 1: the Associated Press in April to discuss so called circumstances
Speaker 1: surrounding Paul Manafort's case, which he is the lead counsel on,
Speaker 1: and that in fact, um and then was appointed by
Speaker 1: Robert Mueller after but in fact may have been involved
Speaker 1: in leaking grand jury information and the fact that a
Speaker 1: grand jury had been convened in the man of fourth case.
Speaker 1: What do we know about the Sarah, it's your latest
Speaker 1: column today? Oh well, this is this is big developments. Now.
Speaker 1: You remember in January, Sean we first broke the story
Speaker 1: that Andrew Wiseman had actually met with the Associated Press,
Speaker 1: that he had this like secret meeting with the Associated
Speaker 1: Press reporters. It was in April eleven to two thousand
Speaker 1: and sixteen, and the day after he met with them,
Speaker 1: the Associated Press broke their big explosive expose on Manafort
Speaker 1: talking about his dealings with Ukraine. What was really fascinating
Speaker 1: about this, Remember, at the time, Andrew Wiseman wasn't a
Speaker 1: part of the Special Council. He was the top prosecutor
Speaker 1: over at the Justice Department. And now we find, based
Speaker 1: on the document submitted by Weissman by Manaford's attorneys, that
Speaker 1: it was Weissman himself who called for that meeting. And
Speaker 1: during that time there was a grand jury that had
Speaker 1: convened about Paul Maniford. So this is really a big
Speaker 1: deal for them, and they really are making huge strides
Speaker 1: that they were able to expose this because now it's
Speaker 1: going to be up to the judge at the Eastern
Speaker 1: District here in Virginia. They're going to make the decision,
Speaker 1: and this judge has tended to be very lenient towards
Speaker 1: them when it comes to these issues because he does
Speaker 1: not want exculpatory evidence withheld and that was a big
Speaker 1: deal with Wiseman in the past. Remember it has been criticized. Well,
Speaker 1: the judges actually said straight up that the judge will
Speaker 1: decide in this case what is exculpatory and what is
Speaker 1: not absolutely and he's going to stick to it. But
Speaker 1: now we have all this new evidence that is surfacing,
Speaker 1: and this is important evidence because Andrew Wiseman, according to
Speaker 1: the FBI agents that were in attendance at this meeting,
Speaker 1: according to them, Andrew Wiseman did assist these reporters, allegedly
Speaker 1: had them in the right direction, talked about man of
Speaker 1: Ford's case. This is something that should not be done.
Speaker 1: I'm sure Greg can talk about the legal issues surrounding this,
Speaker 1: but you cannot. This is a grand jury. This is secretive.
Speaker 1: This is supposed to be secretive. And this is the
Speaker 1: reason why the FBI after this meeting, they weren't expecting
Speaker 1: this meeting to take place. They actually believed that the
Speaker 1: meeting was set up by the Associated Press, and this
Speaker 1: is according to my sources, and that the the Associated
Speaker 1: Press was going to actually give them information and when
Speaker 1: they got into the meeting, it was none of that.
Speaker 1: The Associated press apparently, according to the sources that I
Speaker 1: spoke with, were like, we're not here to give you information,
Speaker 1: We're here to get information. And now we know that
Speaker 1: Wiseman was the one that set it up. That meeting,
Speaker 1: I have been told lasted more than thirty minutes. There
Speaker 1: were a number of questions being asked by the associated press,
Speaker 1: and apparently and allegedly, Wiseman was aiding them and kind
Speaker 1: of nudging them on in the direction you wanted them.
Speaker 1: There's a reason why Wiseman is no longer at the
Speaker 1: prosecution's table in the Paul Mana four cases anymore. He
Speaker 1: kicked off. He was kicked off. I'm I suspect that
Speaker 1: Robert Mueller has kicked him off the case. Well, because
Speaker 1: of this and other things, you'll no longer see Wiseman,
Speaker 1: and the Wiseman was leading the charge when when Judge
Speaker 1: Ellis the third beat them down, I never saw a
Speaker 1: bigger beat down. And that is Judge Ellis saying, oh,
Speaker 1: we all know what you're doing here. We know you're
Speaker 1: putting the screws to Manafort and the hopes that he's
Speaker 1: gonna sing or compose, compose I interpret to be subortin
Speaker 1: perjury to say anything you need to get out of
Speaker 1: a potential jail sentence. And by the way, how many
Speaker 1: days now has Paul Manaphort been twenty three hours a
Speaker 1: day confined, never convicted of a thing. And by the way,
Speaker 1: Manafort apparently reached out to a quote potential witness that
Speaker 1: he never even talked to, as I understand it, and
Speaker 1: what might have been an attempt to get in touch
Speaker 1: with the person. But putting all of that aside, I mean,
Speaker 1: Wiseman was the lead guy. And and they said, the
Speaker 1: reason they want to put the screws to Manafort to
Speaker 1: make them sing or compose it because they want to
Speaker 1: either prosecute or or get informations who impeached Donald Trump
Speaker 1: on TL T SLIS. The judge said, well, wait a minute,
Speaker 1: where did you get this case? Did this case arise
Speaker 1: from the special counsel investigation? And during court room testimony, uh,
Speaker 1: the prosecutors had to confess, no, it didn't. We dug
Speaker 1: it out of the dusty archives in the I R. S. Division. Justice,
Speaker 1: that's right, the Tax Department division. So the judge said, well,
Speaker 1: where do you get the authority? You only have authority
Speaker 1: if something arises out of your assignment as special counsel.
Speaker 1: Now in the end the judge has said I'm gonna
Speaker 1: let it go forward, but I still have reservations about this.
Speaker 1: And uh, you know, Paul Manaford is in solitary confinement,
Speaker 1: behind bars. He's not a violent offender. And this was
Speaker 1: the decision of the d C judge, by the way,
Speaker 1: not Ellis. It's a confin Listen, if twenty three hours
Speaker 1: in a jail cell and you're not all you are
Speaker 1: is charged, you're not convicted of anything. They dug back
Speaker 1: to two thousand and five. But the very reasons Judge
Speaker 1: Ellis courageously spoke out about Sarah, I've got to be honest.
Speaker 1: They are trying to break him hard. They're trying to
Speaker 1: break him and they're doing a job of it because
Speaker 1: right now he's sitting in Northern Neck Regional Jail in Worthaw, Virginia,
Speaker 1: and he has only had twenty three hours a day
Speaker 1: of he's had twenty three hours a day of solitary
Speaker 1: confinement and only one hour outside of that solitary confinement.
Speaker 1: It's one hour a day. That's it. That's it. One
Speaker 1: hour a day he's restricted. He can't even receive electronic communications.
Speaker 1: His phone calls are restricted to ten minutes each. This
Speaker 1: is really an incredible amount of pressure being put on
Speaker 1: one person who I have been told by sources is
Speaker 1: not going to cooperate because he has nothing to cooperate on. Well,
Speaker 1: this is why, Well, this is why the judge said,
Speaker 1: not just sing. Singing would be obviously a tune that
Speaker 1: you know, composing would be what do you want me
Speaker 1: to say so I can get out of this, this
Speaker 1: disastrous situation of twenty three hours a day. Prosecutors know
Speaker 1: that if you apply enough pressure on somebody financially, on
Speaker 1: their family, or on them personally solitary confinement twenty three
Speaker 1: hours a day, that person has a very good likelihood
Speaker 1: of cracking and signing anything. Even a composed statement that
Speaker 1: is nothing more than a lot sounds a lot like
Speaker 1: a movie where we watch Americans held abroad or former POWs.
Speaker 1: I have always said that if a pow being tortured
Speaker 1: signs a document, they do not deserve to get judged
Speaker 1: by the American people because of the circumstances under which
Speaker 1: none of us have ever lived. And there they have
Speaker 1: over two million documents that Robert Mueller has produced to
Speaker 1: his attorneys. On Friday, apparently fifty thousand more documents were
Speaker 1: handed over. This is only weeks before he's supposed to
Speaker 1: go to trial, and he can't even sit with his
Speaker 1: attorneys to go over these documents before the trial date.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's really incredible what they're doing to him.
Speaker 1: They didn't have to throw him in solitary confinement behind bars.
Speaker 1: The judge, the DC judge in this particular case, so well,
Speaker 1: one of my I can't take away his cell phone. Yes,
Speaker 1: your honor, you can take away his cell phone. You
Speaker 1: can confine him to his home with an ankle bracelet
Speaker 1: disconnect his computer and his telephones and take away his
Speaker 1: cell phones. That would have been the proper thing to do.
Speaker 1: But this judge did not want to do justice. Why
Speaker 1: is it that this stands at some point? You know,
Speaker 1: it's almost like this is now and what I thought
Speaker 1: there was the presumption of innocence. In what way is
Speaker 1: Paul Manafort a threat to others in society? When I'm
Speaker 1: talking about a mob murderer here, when I'm talking about
Speaker 1: a big time drug dealer here, We're not talking about
Speaker 1: somebody that you know, a gang member that is seeking
Speaker 1: vengeance in some way. But talking about a two thousand
Speaker 1: and five tax case, right, it's a it's a tax
Speaker 1: fraud case, and and it's absurd and outrageous that he
Speaker 1: be thrown in jail pending trial for this. There were
Speaker 1: other ways to handle it, but this just underscores that
Speaker 1: Manaphort cannot get a fair trial in d C in
Speaker 1: front of that particular judge or in front of a
Speaker 1: d C jury, And in fact, the other case in Alexandria, Virginia,
Speaker 1: he can't get a fair trial there. He gets a
Speaker 1: fair judge T. S Elis, but they ought to move
Speaker 1: it to Ranoke, Virginia, where you can get a fair trial.
Speaker 1: Now let me go. This trial starts July. Of two trials,
Speaker 1: and the second one is apparently scheduled for September seventeen,
Speaker 1: and this in Washington, d C. So you're you're absolutely right, Greg,
Speaker 1: There's been a lot of people talking about that needing
Speaker 1: to be moved. Yeah. Well, let me ask this because
Speaker 1: I think this is very very important. I just want
Speaker 1: to know. One, are the options that Manafort has at
Speaker 1: this time, Well, he's he's exercising one of them, actually
Speaker 1: two of them. He is appealing his confinement. Uh, and
Speaker 1: he has a very solid legal basis for doing that,
Speaker 1: because this is way over the top abusive by the
Speaker 1: special counsel and the judge in d C. And second
Speaker 1: of all, he is making a motion for moving the
Speaker 1: venue too, as I said to run O Virginia, where
Speaker 1: he can get a fair shot at justice there, because
Speaker 1: in d C and Alexandria that are so uh pro
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton, they voted that way. They're anti Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: I mean, and this is a political case where they
Speaker 1: like it or not. Uh, he cannot get a fair trial.
Speaker 1: So those are his two options right now. All right,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna have to let you both go, but we'll
Speaker 1: be following all of this nine oh one thirty tonight
Speaker 1: Eastern time on Hannity. The President makes his choice on
Speaker 1: the United States Supreme Court. Also, we have a lot
Speaker 1: of big news with the deep state that is breaking.
Speaker 1: While an update on Manta Fort. We're expecting protests all
Speaker 1: over Europe coming up later this week. We'll be broadcasting
Speaker 1: from there. Thank you, Greg, thank you, Sarah. Quick break
Speaker 1: right back Hannity tonight at nine breaking news, the President
Speaker 1: announced his Supreme Court justice. Alright, that's gonna wrap things
Speaker 1: up for today. All right, We're almost three hours away
Speaker 1: now nine oh one thirty Eastern, six oh one thirty Pacific.
Speaker 1: Just as Hannity comes on the air on the Fox
Speaker 1: News Channel, the President will announce his choice for the U. S.
Speaker 1: Supreme Court, Jay Seculo. We have judged Jenny and Pirou.
Speaker 1: We have Greg Jarrett, Andy McCarthy, We have had Henry
Speaker 1: and Washington. Shannon Bream isn't Washington, She's our expert of
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court. Also, we'll check in with Sarah Carter,
Speaker 1: John Solomon, and much more. That's nine Eastern. Don't miss
Speaker 1: the action tonight on Hannity on the Fox News Channel.