All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 5, 2018 - Sean Hannity Show
01:47:56
Victory In Sight? - 10.5

Join Sean as he sits down with Senator Lindsey Graham to discuss the final push to confirm Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Plus, listen to Senator Collins’ floor remarks that marked a historic swing in this confirmation process. The Sean Hannity Show is on weekdays from 3 pm to 6 pm ET on iHeartRadio and Hannity.com. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is an iHeart podcast.
Let not your heart be troubled.
You are listening to the Sean Hannity Radio Show Podcast.
My friends at MyPillow, my buddy Mike Lundell, told me he was coming out with a brand new product.
It's called the New Mattress Topper.
So I got the new mattress topper immediately and I've been sleeping on it now for a couple of months.
It's the best thing you've ever felt in your life.
Now, you literally have MyPillow foam for support.
It's a transitional foam that helps relieve pressure points and it's ultra-soft, patented temperature regulating cover.
And I got to tell you, it has a 10-year warranty, a cover that's washable and dryable.
It's made in the USA, backed by the 60-day unconditional money-back guarantee.
Once you try this new mattress topper, you put it right over your mattress, you will never sleep better.
And right now, you, my radio listeners, are going to save 30% off when you go to mypillow.com and use the promo code TOPPER.
And by the way, Mike will also give you two standard MyPillows absolutely free.
All right, so try mypillow.com promo code TOPPER.
Promo code TOPPER for this great deal and the best night's sleep you ever had.
All right, glad you're with us.
We are expecting any moment this hour that Senator Susan Collins of Maine will be making her announcement as to, and she did vote yes, to end cloture, and that means the 30-hour clock has started.
And we expect her decision on the final vote for confirmation, which we expect will take place sometime tomorrow around 5 o'clock Eastern time.
Oh, Susan, who's speaking?
Susan Collins has taken the floor if you want to go to a point.
Susan Collins just took to the floor.
Let's listen in.
The Senator for Maine.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The senator will suspend.
The Sergeant-in-Arms will suspend until this Sergeant-in-Arms will restore order in the gallery.
Sergeant.
we speak here.
As a reminder to our guests in the galleries, expressions of approval or disapproval are not permitted in the Senate galleries.
The Senator for Maine.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, the five previous times that I've come to the floor to explain my vote on the nomination of a justice to the United States Supreme Court, I have begun my floor remarks explaining my decision with a recognition of the solemn nature and the importance of the occasion.
But today, we have come to the conclusion of a confirmation process that has become so dysfunctional, it looks more like a caricature of a gutter-level political campaign than a solemn occasion.
The president nominated Brett Kavanaugh on July 9th.
Within moments of that announcement, special interest groups raced to be the first to oppose him, including one organization that didn't even bother to fill in the judge's name on its pre-written press release.
They simply wrote that they opposed Donald Trump's nomination of XX to the Supreme Court of the United States.
A number of senators joined the race to announce their opposition, but they were beaten to the punch by one of our colleagues who actually announced opposition before the nominee's identity was even known.
Since that time, we have seen special interest groups whip their followers into a frenzy by spreading misrepresentations and outright falsehoods about Judge Kavanaugh's judicial record.
Over-the-top rhetoric and distortions of his record and testimony at his first hearing produced short-lived headlines, which, although debunked hours later, continued to live on and be spread through social media.
Interest groups have also spent an unprecedented amount of dark money opposing this nomination.
Our Supreme Court confirmation process has been in steady decline for more than 30 years.
One can only hope that the Kavanaugh nomination is where the process has finally hit rock bottom.
Against this backdrop, it is up to each individual senator to decide what the Constitution's advice and consent duty means.
Informed by Alexander Hamilton's Federalist 76, I have interpreted this to mean that the President has broad discretion to consider a nominee's philosophy,
whereas my duty as a senator is to focus on the nominee's qualifications as long as that nominee's philosophy is within the mainstream of judicial thought.
I have always opposed limpness tests for judicial nominees with respect to their personal views or politics, but I fully expect them to be able to put aside any and all personal preferences in deciding the cases that come before them.
I've never considered the president's identity or party when evaluating Supreme Court nominations.
As a result, I voted in favor of Justices Roberts and Alito, who were nominated by President Bush, Justices Sodomaior and Kagan, who were nominated by President Obama, and Justice Gorsuch, who was nominated by President Trump.
So I began my evaluation of Judge Kavanaugh's nomination by reviewing his 12-year record on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, including his more than 300 opinions and his many speeches and law review articles.
19 attorneys, including lawyers from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, briefed me many times each week and assisted me in evaluating the judge's extensive record.
I met with Judge Kavanaugh for more than two hours in my office.
I listened carefully to the testimony at the committee hearings.
I spoke with people who knew him personally, such as Condoleezza Rice and many others.
And I talked with Judge Kavanaugh a second time by phone for another hour to ask him very specific additional questions.
I also have met with thousands of my constituents, both advocates and many opponents, regarding Judge Kavanaugh.
One concern that I frequently heard was that the judge would be likely to eliminate the Affordable Care Act's vital protections for people with pre-existing conditions.
I disagree with this contention.
In a dissent in Seven Sky Beholder, Judge Kavanaugh rejected a challenge to the ACA on narrow procedural grounds, preserving the law in full.
Many experts have said that his dissent informed Justice Roberts' opinion, upholding the ACA at the Supreme Court.
Furthermore, Judge Kavanaugh's approach toward the doctrine of severability is narrow.
When a part of a statute is challenged on constitutional grounds, he has argued for severing the invalid clause as surgically as possible while allowing the overall law to remain intact.
This was his approach in his dissent in a case that involved a challenge to the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
In his dissent, Judge Kavanaugh argued for, quote, severing any problematic portions while leaving the remainder intact, end quote.
Given the current challenges to the ACA, proponents, including myself, of protections for people with pre-existing conditions should want a justice who would take just this kind of approach.
Another assertion that I've heard often is that Judge Kavanaugh cannot be trusted if a case involving alleged wrongdoing by the president were to come before the court.
The basis for this argument seems to be twofold.
First, Judge Kavanaugh has written that he believes that Congress should enact legislation to protect presidents from criminal prosecution or civil liability while in office.
Mr. President, I believe opponents missed the mark on this issue.
The fact that Judge Kavanaugh offered this legislative proposal suggests that he believes that the president does not have such protection currently.
Second, there are some who argue that given the current special counsel investigation, President Trump should not even be allowed to nominate a justice.
That argument ignores our recent history.
President Clinton in 1993 nominated Justice Ginsburg after the Whitewater investigation was already underway.
And she was confirmed 96-3.
The next year, just three months after independent counsel Robert Fisk was named to lead the Whitewater investigation, President Clinton nominated Justice Breyer.
He was confirmed in the-prestations along the Sean Hennedy Show Network.
We are going to stay with this through our first break and continue our coverage.
Supreme Court justices have not hesitated to rule against the presidents who have nominated them.
Perhaps most notably in the United States versus Nixon, three Nixon appointees who heard the case joined the unanimous opinion against him.
Judge Kavanaugh has been unequivocal in his belief that no president is above the law.
He has stated that Marbury versus Madison, Youngstown Seal versus Sawyer, and the United States versus Nixon are three of the four greatest Supreme Court cases in history.
What do they have in common?
Each of them is a case where Congress served as a check on presidential power.
And I would note that the fourth case that Judge Kavanaugh has pointed to as the greatest in history was Brown versus the Board of Education.
One Kavanaugh decision illustrates the point about the check on presidential power directly.
He wrote the opinion in Hamdan versus the United States, a case that challenges the Bush administration's military commission prosecution of an associate of Osama bin Laden.
This conviction was very important to the Bush administration, but Judge Kavanaugh, who had been appointed to the DC Circuit by President Bush and had worked in President Bush's White House, ruled that the conviction was unlawful.
As he explained during the hearing, quote, we don't make decisions based on who people are or their policy preferences or the moment.
We base decisions on the law, end quote.
Others I've met with have expressed concerns that Justice Kennedy's retirement threatens the right of same-sex couples to marry.
Yet Judge Kavanaugh described the Obergefell decision, which legalized same-gender marriages, as an important landmark precedent.
He also cited Justice Kennedy's recent masterpiece cake shop opinion for the court's majority, stating that, quote, the days of treating gay and lesbian Americans or gay and lesbian couples as second-class citizens who are inferior in dignity and worth are over in the Supreme Court, end quote.
Others have suggested that the judge holds extreme views on birth control.
In one case, Judge Kavanaugh incurred the disfavor of both sides of the political spectrum for seeking to ensure the availability of contraceptive services for women while minimizing the involvement of employers with religious objections.
Although his critics frequently overlook this point, Judge Kavanaugh's dissent rejected arguments that the government did not have a compelling interest in facilitating access to contraception.
In fact, he wrote that the Supreme Court precedent strongly suggested that there was a compelling interest in facilitating access to birth control.
There has also been considerable focus on the future of abortion rights based on the concern that Judge Kavanaugh would seek to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Protecting this right is important to me.
To my knowledge, Judge Kavanaugh is the first Supreme Court nominee to express the view that precedent is not merely a practice and tradition, but rooted in Article III of our Constitution itself.
He believes that precedent is not just a judicial policy, it is constitutionally dictated to pay attention and pay heed to rules of precedent.
In other words, precedent isn't a goal or an aspiration.
It is a constitutional tenet that has to be followed except in the most extraordinary circumstances.
The judge further explained that precedent provides stability, predictability, reliance, and fairness.
There are, of course, rare and extraordinary times where the Supreme Court would rightly overturn a precedent.
The most famous example was when the Supreme Court in Brown versus the Board of Education overruled Plessy v. Ferguson, correcting a grievously wrong decision, to use the judge's term, allowing racial inequality.
But someone who believes that the importance of precedent has been rooted in the Constitution would follow long-established precedent, except in those rare circumstances where a decision is grievously wrong or deeply inconsistent with the law.
Those are Judge Kavanaugh's phrases.
As the judge asserted to me, a long-established precedent is not something to be trimmed, narrowed, discarded, or overlooked.
Its roots in the Constitution give the concept of starry decises greater weight, such that the precedent can't be trimmed or narrowed simply because a judge might want to on a whim.
In short, his views on honoring precedent would preclude attempts to do by stealth that which one has committed not to do overtly.
Noting that Roe v. Wade was decided 45 years ago and reaffirmed 19 years later in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, I asked Judge Kavanaugh whether the passage of time is relevant to following precedent.
He said decisions become part of our legal framework with the passage of time and that honoring precedent is essential to maintaining public confidence.
Our discussion then turned to the right of privacy on which the Supreme Court relied in Griswold v. Connecticut, a case that struck down a law banning the use and sale of contraceptions.
Griswold established the legal foundation that led to Roe eight years later.
In describing Griswold as settled law, Judge Kavanaugh observed that it was the correct application of two famous cases from the 1920s, Meyer and Pierce, that are not seriously challenged by anyone today.
Finally, in his testimony, he noted repeatedly that Roe had been upheld by Planned Parenthood versus Casey, describing it as precedent on precedent.
When I asked him, would it be sufficient to overturn a long-established precedent if five current justices believed that it was wrongly decided, he emphatically said no.
Opponents frequently cite then-candidate Donald Trump's campaign pledge to nominate only judges who would overturn Roe.
The Republican platform for all presidential campaigns.
We're going to continue our coverage of Senator Susan Collins on the Senate floor.
She is about to announce her decision.
This could be the determining vote as it relates to Judge Kavanaugh.
We will be allowing our stations across the Sean Hannity Show network to make their own decisions on whether to break away.
We will be staying with our coverage.
I've included this pledge since at least 1980.
During this time, Republican presidents have appointed Justices O'Connor, Souter, and Kennedy to the Supreme Court.
These are the very three justices, Republican president-appointed justices, who authored the Casey decision, which reaffirmed Roe.
Furthermore, pro-choice groups vigorously opposed each of these justices' nominations.
Incredibly, they even circulated buttons with the slogan, stop Souter, or women will die.
Just two years later, Justice Souter co-authored the Casey opinion, reaffirming a woman's right to choose.
Suffice it to say, prominent advocacy organizations have been wrong.
These same interest groups have speculated that Judge Kavanaugh was selected to do the bidding of conservative ideologues despite his record of judicial independence.
I asked the judge point blank whether he had made any commitments or pledges to anyone at the White House, to the Federalist Society, to any outside group on how he would decide cases.
He unequivocally assured me that he had not.
Judge Kavanaugh has received rave reviews for his 12-year track record as a judge, including for his judicial temperament.
The American Bar Association gave him its highest possible rating.
Its standing committee on the federal judiciary conducted an extraordinarily thorough assessment, soliciting input from almost 500 people, including his judicial colleagues.
The ABA concluded that his integrity, judicial temperament, and professional competence met the highest standards.
Lisa Blatt, who has argued more cases before the Supreme Court than any other woman in history, testified, quote, by any objective measure, Judge Kavanaugh is clearly qualified to serve on the Supreme Court.
His opinions are invariably thoughtful and fair.
Ms. Blatt, who clerked for and is an ardent admirer of Justice Ginsburg and who is, in her own words, an unapologetic defender of a woman's right to choose, said that Judge Kavanaugh fits within the mainstream of legal thought.
She also observed that Judge Kavanaugh is remarkably committed to promoting women in the legal profession.
That Judge Kavanaugh is more of a centrist than some of his critics maintain is reflected in the fact that he and Chief Judge Merrick Garland voted the same way in 93% of the cases that they heard together.
Indeed, Chief Judge Garland joined in more than 96% of the majority opinions authored by Judge Kavanaugh, dissenting only once.
Despite all this, after weeks of reviewing Judge Kavanaugh's record and listening to 32 hours of his testimony, the Senate's advice and consent role was thrown into a tailspin following the allegations of sexual assault by Professor Christine Blasey Ford.
The confirmation process now involves evaluating whether or not Judge Kavanaugh committed sexual assault and lied about it to the Judiciary Committee.
Some argue that because this is a lifetime appointment to our highest court, the public interest requires that doubts be resolved against the nominee.
Others see the public interest as embodied in our long-established tradition of affording to those accused of misconduct a presumption of innocence.
In cases in which the facts are unclear, they would argue that the question should be resolved in favor of the nominee.
Mr. President, I understand both viewpoints.
This debate is complicated further by the fact that the Senate confirmation process is not a trial.
But certain fundamental legal principles about due process, the presumption of innocence, and fairness do bear on my thinking, and I cannot abandon them.
In evaluating any given claim of misconduct, we will be ill-served in the long run if we abandon the presumption of innocence and fairness, tempting though it may be.
We must always remember that it is when passions are most inflamed that fairness is most in jeopardy.
The presumption of innocence is relevant to the advice and consent function when an accusation departs from a nominee's otherwise exemplary record.
I worry that departing from this presumption could lead to a lack of public faith in the judiciary and would be hugely damaging to the confirmation process moving forward.
Some of the allegations levied against Judge Kavanaugh illustrate why the presumption of innocence is so important.
I am thinking in particular not of the allegations raised by Professor Ford, but of the allegation that when he was a teenager, Judge Kavanaugh drugged multiple girls and used their weakened state to facilitate gang rape.
This outlandish allegation was put forth without any credible supporting evidence and simply parroted public statements of others.
That such an allegation can find its way into the Supreme Court confirmation process is a stark reminder about why the presumption of innocence is so ingrained in our American consciousness.
Mr. President, I listened carefully to Christine Blasey-Ford's testimony before the Judiciary Committee.
I found her testimony to be sincere, painful, and compelling.
I believe that she is a survivor of a sexual assault and that this trauma has upended her life.
Nevertheless, the four witnesses she named could not corroborate any of the events of that evening gathering where she says the assault occurred.
None of the individuals Professor Ford says were at the party has any recollection at all of that night.
Judge Kavanaugh forcefully denied the allegations under penalty of perjury.
Mark Judge denied under penalty of felony that he had witnessed an assault.
P.J. Smith, another person allegedly at the party, denied that he was there under penalty of felony.
Professor Ford's lifelong friend, Leland Kaiser, indicated that under penalty of felony, she does not remember that party.
And Ms. Kaiser went further.
She indicated that not only does she not remember a night like that, but also that she does not even know Brett Kavanaugh.
In addition to the lack of corroborating evidence, we also learned some facts that raise more questions.
For instance, since these allegations have become public, Professor Ford testified that not a single person has contacted her to say, I was at the party that night.
Furthermore, the professor testified that although she does not remember how she got home that evening, she knew that because of the distance, she would have needed a ride.
Yet not a single person has come forward to say that they were the one who drove her home or were in the car with her that night.
And Professor Ford also indicated that even though she left that small gathering of six or so people abruptly and without saying goodbye and distraught, none of them called her the next day or ever to ask why she left.
Is she okay?
Not even her closest friend, Ms. Kaiser.
Mr. President, the Constitution does not provide guidance on how we are supposed to evaluate these competing claims.
It leaves that decision up to each senator.
This is not a criminal trial, and I do not believe that the claims such as these need to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Nevertheless, fairness would dictate that the claims at least should meet a threshold of more likely than not as our standard.
The facts presented do not mean that Professor Ford was not sexually assaulted that night or at some other time, but they do lead me to conclude that the allegations failed to meet the more likely than not standard.
Therefore, I do not believe that these charges can fairly prevent Judge Kavanaugh from serving on the court.
Let me emphasize that my approach to this question should not be misconstrued as suggesting that unwanted sexual contact of any nature is not a serious problem in this country.
To the contrary, if any good at all has come from this ugly confirmation process, it has been to create an awareness that we have underestimated the pervasiveness of this terrible problem.
I have been alarmed and disturbed, however, by some who have suggested that unless Judge Kavanaugh's nomination is rejected, the Senate is somehow condoning sexual assault.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Every person, man or woman, who makes a charge of sexual assault deserves to be heard and treated with respect.
The Me Too movement is real.
It matters.
It is needed and it is long overdue.
We know that rape and sexual assault are less likely to be reported to the police than other forms of assault.
On average, an estimated 211,000 rapes and sexual assaults go unreported every year.
We must listen to survivors, and every day we must seek to stop the criminal behavior that has hurt so many.
We owe this to ourselves, our children, and generations to come.
Since the hearing, I have listened to many survivors of sexual assault.
Many were total strangers who told me their heart-wrenching stories for the first time in their lives.
Some were friends that I had known for decades, yet with the exception of one woman who had confided in me years ago, I had no idea that they had been the victims of sexual attacks.
I am grateful for their courage and their willingness to come forward, and I hope that in heightening public awareness, they have also lightened the burden that they have been quietly bearing for so many years.
To them, I pledge to do all that I can to ensure that their daughters and granddaughters never share their experiences.
Over the past few weeks, I have been emphatic that the Senate has an obligation to investigate and evaluate the serious allegations of sexual assault.
I called for and supported the additional hearing to hear from both Professor Ford and Judge Kavanaugh.
I also pushed for and supported the FBI's supplemental background investigation.
This was the right thing to do.
Christine Ford never sought the spotlight.
She indicated that she was terrified to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee and she has shunned attention since then.
She seemed completely unaware of Chairman Grassley's offer to allow her to testify confidentially in California.
Watching her, Mr. President, I could not help but feel that Some people who wanted to engineer the defeat of this nomination cared little, if at all, for her well-being.
Professor Ford testified that a very limited number of people had access to her letter.
Yet that letter found its way into the public domain.
She testified that she never gave permission for that very private letter to be released.
And yet, here we are.
We are in the middle of a fight that she never fought, arguing about claims that she wanted to raise confidentially.
Now, one theory I've heard espoused repeatedly is that our colleague Senator Feinstein leaked Professor Ford's letter at the 11th hour to derail this process.
I want to state this very clearly.
I know Senator Diane Feinstein extremely well, and I believe that she would never do that.
I knew that to be the case before she even stated it at the hearing.
She is a person of integrity, and I stand by her.
I have also heard some argue that the chairman of the committee somehow treated Professor Ford unfairly.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Chairman Grassley, along with his excellent staff, treated Professor Ford with compassion and respect throughout the entire process.
And that is the way the senator from Iowa has conducted himself throughout a lifetime dedicated to public service.
But the fact remains, Mr. President, someone leaked this letter against Professor Ford's express wishes.
I suspect, regrettably, that we will never know for certain who did it.
To that leaker, who I hope is listening now, let me say that what you did was unconscionable.
You have taken a survivor who was not only entitled to your respect, but who also trusted you to protect her.
And you have sacrificed her well-being in a misguided attempt to win whatever political crusade you think you are fighting.
My only hope is that your Callas Act has turned this process into such a dysfunctional circus that it will cause the Senate and indeed all Americans to reconsider how we evaluate Supreme Court nominees.
If that happens, then the appalling lack of compassion you afforded Professor Ford will at least have some unintended positive consequences.
Mr. President, the politically charged atmosphere surrounding this nomination has reached a fever pitch even before these allegations were known, and it has been challenging even then to separate fact from fiction.
We live in a time of such great disunity as the bitter fight over this nomination both in the Senate and among the public clearly demonstrates.
It is not merely a case of differing groups having different opinions.
It is a case of people bearing extreme ill will toward those who disagree with them.
In our intense focus on our differences, we have forgotten the common values that bind us together as Americans.
When some of our best minds are seeking to develop even more sophisticated algorithms designed to link us to websites that only re-just giving a heads up again to the affiliates of the Sean Hannity Show Network, Susan Collins, this historic speech on the Senate floor, we will continue our coverage.
And cater to our views, we can only expect our differences to intensify.
This would have alarmed the drafters of our Constitution who were acutely aware that different values and interests could prevent Americans from becoming and remaining a single people.
Indeed, of the six objectives they invoked in the preamble to the Constitution, the one that they put first was the formation of a more perfect union.
Their vision of a more perfect union does not exist today.
And if anything, we appear to be moving farther away from it.
It is particularly worrisome that the Supreme Court, the institution that most Americans see as the principal guardian of our shared constitutional heritage, is viewed as part of the problem through a political lens.
Mr. President, we've heard a lot of charges and countercharges about Judge Kavanaugh.
But as those who have known him best have attested, he has been an exemplary public servant, judge, teacher, coach, husband, and father.
Despite the turbulent, bitter fight surrounding his nomination, my fervent hope is that Brett Kavanaugh will work to lessen the divisions in the Supreme Court so that we have far fewer 5-4 decisions and so that public confidence in our judiciary and our highest court is restored.
Mr. President, I will vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I think one of the more amazing speeches, and I have now, it's actually interesting because as of tomorrow, I begin my 23rd year on the Fox News channel and my 30 years on radio.
That was one of the most thoughtful speeches I think I've ever heard.
And I'm frankly shocked.
Susan Collins over the years has frustrated the living daylights out of me over her opinions.
I think what stands out more than anything else is the sincere, compelling amount of gravity that she gave to her decision and her speech and the gravity of the moment and bringing literally a sense of sanity to what has become an absolute,
as she said, circus around the country and systematically went over every single aspect of her decision-making process from Judge Kavanaugh, his judicial temperament, the questions that he specifically answered, her passion about, especially, and I disagree with her on Roe v. Wade, but on the issue of constitutional precedence, the role of advice and consent,
and the respect that she is showing the Constitution, the process, and the whole process and role of what it means to give advice and consent.
Now, with Susan Collins a yes and Jeff Flake saying he is a yes on Kavanaugh, that now brings us to, well, Lisa Murkowski seemingly is a no.
That brings us to 50, what, 49?
We have 51, 49.
Yeah, so that brings us to 49.
So it really all comes down to, I guess at this point, Joe Manchin and Lisa Murkowski and Lisa Murkowski appears to be a no, and I guess Manchin could be the yes.
Is our math right on this?
Who else is outstanding at this point?
Because everybody else, I think, is on record.
Yeah.
Now, I've got to believe, I think, Joe Manchin, by the way, I don't think it'll be a surprise.
He voted yes to start the debate, the 30 hours final vote that'll happen.
Manchin, well, here we go.
It just broke.
Manchin is voting yes to confirm Judge Kavanaugh.
The votes are there.
Poor Steve Daines has to, he's supposed to walk his daughter down the aisle tomorrow in the middle of this vote.
I don't know how they're going to work that out.
Somebody better lend him a private plane of some kind to get him over there.
What I admired, I think, the most about this speech is the pressure under which Susan Collins has been.
There is literally in Maine going on now.
And by the way, Maine is not exactly one of the most expensive media markets, but she talked in the beginning at length about the process and what this has now become and talk about it being a gutter political campaign and millions of dollars and people and groups of people pledging to destroy her and defeat her in upcoming elections, et cetera.
And wow, this is pretty amazing.
That was just an amazing speech.
800-941-Shawn is auto-free telephone number.
Lindsey Graham is going to join us now at the bottom of the hour.
All right, Manchin voting yes, Flake voting yes, and now Susan Collins voting yes, which means the votes are there to confirm Judge Kavanaugh.
With only a kite, a house key, and wet hemp string, Benjamin Franklin captured lightning in a bottle.
Over 260 years later, with a little resourcefulness, ingenuity, and grit, we're not only capturing energy from the sun and wind, we're storing it, ensuring Americans have the energy they need whenever they need it.
Learn more about the nation's leader in energy storage at NextEraenergy.com.
All right, glad you're with us, hour to Sean Hannity Show.
So I don't really get this impressed by any one speech, by any politician.
The thoroughness, the seriousness of Senator Collins of Maine just before announcing she will vote yes to confirm Judge Kavanaugh to the United States Supreme Court literally blew me away.
It is she went through everything.
She went through the court, his testimony, the precedents, the allegations, how the presumption of innocence is so important, the role of advice and consent, and answered every single imaginable question and had for the most part been keeping her feelings to herself.
We now have an announcement that Joe Manchin of West Virginia is a yes, and he will support Judge Kavanaugh.
And we know that Senator Flake of Arizona is now a yes.
He has announced he's voting for Judge Kavanaugh.
It looks like Lisa Murkowski, although she has not officially announced she voted no on the issue of ending cloture and ending debate in 30 hours.
So I would assume that she's probably a no at this point.
Let's bring in, well, let's first play, here's Joe Manchin making his announcement right after Susan Collins.
Senator, explain your decision to vote for first of all.
I saw that Senator Collins, I wonder out of respect, I wanted to watch her give hers, and she asked to do that.
And I knew when I saw she was going to do that, I said, fine.
I watched it.
And then I made my decision, and I gave my reasons for my decision.
Ours went out, and we wanted to make sure.
You can listen to the people here.
Are you concerned about the sexual abuse that people have had to endure?
And very much concerned that we have to do something as a country.
So I had to deal with the facts I had in front of me.
You believe the allegations?
I'm willing to be the 50 vote for Judge Kavanaugh.
I just, you know, I never thought of it.
Basically, 50, 51, 52, whatever it would have happened.
I said, I had to vote on facts I had in front of me.
If I'd have been in that position, I would have liked to have brought this place back to normal procedure.
If I'd have had that opportunity to a 60-vote threshold.
But why did you wait?
Why did you wait for Collins to make her announcement before you made your announcement?
I think that was basically what was, I saw her announcement that she was going to say that she would do that.
Did you follow her?
Did you decide to vote that way because she voted yes?
Oh, no, no, no.
I think everyone labored with this.
Everybody labored with this decision.
And we all did.
We've been due dilling since I was all mourning wrong.
Everything.
How does Senator Murkowski not voting with her party affect your decision at all?
On you.
Shame on you.
How does Senator Murkowski voting no affect your decision at all, creating it bipartisan on both sides?
Senator Skotkowski is a very, very, very, very dear friend of mine.
Very dear friend of mine.
And she did everything and crossed every T, colored every die, and she went through the same process we all did.
She came to a different conclusion.
I came to my conclusion really this morning when I went through another hour and a half.
Do you believe the allegations?
Do you believe, Dr. Ford?
I believe, Dr. Ford, something happened to Dr. Ford.
I don't believe that the facts showed that it was Brett Kavanaugh, but I believe something happened.
You think it was someone else who did it?
I don't know.
I think something happened to her.
There was no way, no way at all that we can see.
Senator, what do you say to women who watch this process unfold, heard Dr. Ford's story, and feel like Judge Kavanaugh is getting confirmed anyway, even though they've stepped forward and that the Senate is essentially slapping?
I've had people all over West Virginia come forward.
I mean, just the respect, but also just the basically the hurt that people have, the trauma they've gone through.
And I don't know.
I mean, I have empathy and sympathy, and I'll do anything I can to make sure that they are hurt and make sure this doesn't continue.
I think this was an adequate FBI investigation into Delta Kavanaugh.
No, no, no.
I can only have what's in front of me.
That's all I have in front of me now.
Based on what you've seen, based on what you're talking about.
I was not doing it for the FBI investigation.
What was that?
Do you think there should have been more witnesses intervented for the FBI investigation?
I think that you made there's always more that could have been done, I guess, that people are looking at it.
I looked at what was in front of me, and I had to make a decision.
But based on what you've seen, was that a thorough investigation by the FBI?
It was from my standpoint.
It was thorough from what I saw.
The people that I was concerned about, how they said and what they said, and how they did it.
I did.
Senator, do you think that there's still a place in the Democratic Party for you after this?
Why did you?
I'm just a West Virginian.
I'm just a good old West Virginia.
But you were up for re-election in a difficult race.
Are you concerned the base is going to revolt?
I didn't look at this from a political standpoint.
I didn't do that.
Are you concerned with Kavanaugh's temperament at all?
I know some Democrats have expressed concern with Kavanaugh's temperament and tricking me.
The Thursday bothered me.
The Thursday bothered me a lot.
But I saw that basically a different solution.
Shame on you!
Sir!
Shame on you!
All right, that is the well, that's the party of Nancy Pelosi.
If in 32 days, she's the Speaker of the House screaming in the background, and all the protesting that we have seen in the party of Chuck Schumer.
And now we know a party that is willing to put all due process aside, fundamental core values, constitutional protections like the presumption of innocence aside, that will go along with guilt by accusation.
I think one of the more articulate moments was in the beginning of Senator Collins' speech today and how she rightly pointed out there was opposition from day one.
Chuck Schumer was one of them.
There was Nobody, the President Trump, that was, that was going to be nominated, that was ever going to pass to get many Democrats from the get-go.
And I do believe that Joe Manchin probably assured his reelection with this decision today, but I don't really get the sense after reading his statement and hearing what he's saying and what he's withstanding in the halls of the Senate today that that really impacted him much at all.
I got the sense that he did it for all the right reasons, as was articulated by Senator Collins in what was the most riveting one-hour speeches I think I've ever seen on the Senate floor that actually meant something, and how she systematically went through every single, not only allegation, but the role of advice and consent, the meaning of the Constitution, the interpretation of the Federalist Papers, what it means,
the whole issue and process of presumption of innocence and how important it is to society, even issues where I disagree with her, like, for example, Roe v. Wade and precedence and Judge Kavanaugh's real record.
She brought a level of seriousness and sobriety to the entire debate.
I don't know her, and I frankly was blown away by this today.
Here to give us some reaction to all this.
We have David Schoen, civil liberties attorney, criminal defense attorney, Greg Jarrett, Fox News legal analyst, author of the number one bestseller, The Russian Hoax.
Greg, what was your reaction to that speech?
I don't know if you had the same reaction I did.
I was stunned.
I don't know Susan Collins well, but I know her better today.
It was nothing short of brilliant.
With uncommon eloquence and sound reasoning, she delivered the finest speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate that I've ever witnessed.
And for a non-lawyer, it was a compelling legal brief in support of Kavanaugh.
I thought it was important that at the outset, Collins condemned the outrageous behavior, the distortions by special interest groups, activists, protesters, and some Democratic senators, making it clear that their shameful character assassination backfired on them as far as her vote is concerned.
And the best part of what she said was recounting many of Kavanaugh's opinions to demonstrate that even Democrats and liberals should be satisfied, if not pleased, with Kavanaugh as a Supreme Court justice.
But, you know, she did something unique here.
She rebutted the sexual misconduct allegations and said in no uncertain terms that presumption of innocence and fairness is relevant in the Senate's advise and consent duty.
And she announced her own standard for considering accusations.
She said it should be more likely than not, which lawyers know in civil cases is called a preponderance of the evidence.
And she said it wasn't there.
There were no witnesses to corroborate Christine Ford, including her closest friend.
Nobody has any recollection of it.
All said so under penalty of perjury.
So she presented it.
That was what was probably the most impressive.
I mean, her real, obvious, heartfelt caring for Professor Ford, also excoriating whoever it was, and she doesn't believe it was Dianne Feinstein, and she defended both her and Senator Grassley in terms of the fairness, which I've said from the beginning.
I think the seriousness of the allegation deserved a serious response from the Republicans, and I'm often a critic of them, and I think they did handle this perfectly on their side.
But whoever did leak this did a grave disservice to this woman, and there's no doubt about that.
David Schoen, let me bring you in and get your initial thoughts on what we watched unfold here.
Now, with the announcement, Jeff Flake, Joe Manchin, and Susan Collins, it would appear that tomorrow's vote, expected to be around 5 in the afternoon Eastern Time on a Saturday, that Judge Kavanaugh has the votes to be confirmed to the United States Supreme Court.
Right.
Certainly looks that way.
I'd like to think that Senator Collins' speech brought some dignity back to the process.
It certainly did for the moments in which she was speaking.
She, you know, is a student of Senator Bill Cohen from Maine, who was a very close friend of mine with whom I disagreed on some issues.
But he thinks in that same vein.
You're absolutely right.
What she said was so critically important.
Again, it emphasized the language of Article 2, Section 2.
The president shall have the power with the advice and consent.
That's what's been lost in all of this.
Also critically important that she emphasized the presumption of innocence.
You have some legal scholars and commentators during the course of this debate who all of a sudden have said, well, the presumption of innocence doesn't really apply.
This isn't a trial.
It's not a trial-based concept in American law.
That's in a fundamental bedrock American principle.
That's the way we go about our business.
We don't assume based on allegation that a man or a woman who's built up a career is guilty.
So it's important for that.
I worry still, I have to say, about where we go from here because we have seen behavior by United States senators that has been beyond the pale that I never in my wildest, perhaps naive dreams could have imagined was possible.
People who simply don't know anything about Professor Ford or Judge Kavanaugh, who carved out a position, you were a bad guy if you didn't wear black to Columbia Law School during the Kavanaugh hearing, because that meant that you might believe Judge Kavanaugh.
This is beyond the pale.
These are future lawyers.
So I wonder about where we go from here.
And last point I want to make on this is the very same people who were lambasting the president for daring to criticize crooked FBI agents who have been proven to be crooked, Struok, et cetera.
Those people for whom Struck was a hero are now criticizing the FBI that this wasn't a fair or thorough investigation.
They moved the ball with their criticism, whatever it is.
For Judge Kavanaugh, he was a sex offender.
Now he's not that, but they don't like his demeanor because he took it personally when it comes to the corporate.
No, they don't like his temperament.
How is one supposed to respond to be a serial drugger and gang rapist of teenage girls?
I don't know what the appropriate response except if you're innocent, just outrage and anger at a level that I couldn't even begin to describe.
But it looks like this goes forward.
It looks like Kavanaugh has the votes that will support his nomination and that this will conclude tomorrow, barring any unforeseen last-minute insanity.
But I will tell you, one issue we've got to deal with, and I've got to say goodbye to both of you.
Thank you both for weighing in on this.
Lindsey Graham is coming up.
But I will say one thing.
We have got to deal with what this has now become.
It is a national, disgusting, personal, bludgeoning disgrace.
They have ruined this man's reputation in 18 days with zero corroboration.
It's a national disgrace that people rushed to judgment, and there was nobody, nobody on the Democratic side but for Manchin that ever considered voting for Judge Kavanaugh.
I know I said this.
I'm just saying it again.
I just maybe I just never knew Susan Collins.
Look, one thing that the Republican Party has that the Democratic Party does not have, there is not this monolithic one-voice radicalism that has taken over the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.
I mean, it was what's been fascinating to watch with all of the madness, the bludgeoning, the character assassination, the smearing, the lying, the intensity, the protest.
And it's not going to stop.
This is going to go forward.
It's got to stop if we want to be the United States of America.
I mean, how is it that Republicans always support Ruth Bader Gittinsburg and Justice Soda Mayor and Elena Kagan and Republican nominees just get bludgeoned?
It doesn't matter if there's any corroborating evidence.
You know, one thing is I'm watching Susan Collins, the speech was so well thought out based on facts and the standards that she uses to evaluate important issues.
Maybe that's why she kept it to herself pretty much the whole time.
Nobody knew what she was going to do.
That was just not a nonpartisan speech.
It was a speech and a reminder of the dignity that we can have in spite of disagreements and talked about the law, the Constitution, the role of the Senate, advice and consent, and a little bit of class.
And she made all of these left-wingers that have been insane all these days.
And it's going to get worse unless we insist it stop in 32 days.
Lindsey Graham is next.
In addition to the lack of corroborating evidence, we also learned some facts that raise more questions.
For instance, since these allegations have become public, Professor Ford testified that not a single person has contacted her to say, I was at the party that night.
Furthermore, the professor testified that although she does not remember how she got home that evening, she knew that because of the distance, she would have needed a ride.
Yet not a single person has come forward to say that they were the one who drove her home or were in the car with her that night.
And Professor Ford also indicated that even though she left that small gathering of six or so people abruptly and without saying goodbye and distraught, none of them called her the next day or ever to ask why she left.
Is she okay?
Not even her closest friend, Ms. Kaiser.
My fervent hope is that Brett Kavanaugh will work to lessen the divisions in the Supreme Court so that we have far fewer 5-4 decisions and so that public confidence in our judiciary and our highest court is restored.
Mr. President, I will vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh.
And with that, Susan Collins announcing, I think, one of the, well, I'm going to be honest, I thought it was the most powerful speech in recent memory on the Senate floor that I've ever seen.
It was thorough.
It was sober.
It was smart.
It was thoughtful.
It was comprehensive.
She went through everything from judicial temperament and philosophy to her own belief system, how she came to her decisions, her constitutional view on the Supreme Court, on the role of advice and consent, on the madness and the circus that has broken out in this country.
And I'm frankly, we never run an entire commercial free hour unless it's really important news.
And we did that for you, our beloved audience, because it was something that I wanted everybody to hear.
This is a moment in history.
What has happened in the last 18 days can't continue to happen in this country.
You cannot bludgeon people without any corroborating evidence the way Judge Kavanaugh and his family have been bludgeoned.
You can have political differences.
And I've had my share with Senator Collins over the years.
What I really realized today is I don't know her well.
She doesn't do a lot of television.
She's not somebody I've interviewed a lot.
I think the most impressive thing that I took away from this is the seriousness, the intellect, the systematic.
She walked every American through her decision-making process, and frankly, it was flawless.
It was spectacular.
Nothing short of spectacular.
Now, I know a lot of people are spending a lot of money, and it's probably only going to get worse for her because she clearly followed her conscience on this issue.
And it was obvious she missed nothing.
She had followed every single solitary detail of this process, did all the work you would ever want or expect from a representative.
And now I guess the left is about as unhinged as they've been.
I don't even think it's safe to walk the Senate halls at this point.
Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, I would argue it would not have happened but for him.
He joins us on our newsmaker line.
You know, you told me something when I was in Washington earlier this week, and I asked you, I said, well, what do you know about Susan Collins?
And you basically described what I learned about her today.
I was blown away.
And I don't get blown away very often.
I'm too cynical.
I'm from New York.
I've been in radio 30 years.
Tomorrow I start my 23rd year on the Fox News channel.
Well, you know, I'm in a political system that's deteriorating.
I think what you saw today, somebody stepped forward to maybe save it.
The biggest winner of this speech is the judiciary because there was a wholesale attack on the independence of the judiciary.
One at all costs.
What you saw today was a person embracing the rule of law, not the rule of the mob.
What you saw today was a woman not being intimidated.
What you saw today was a good man, Brett Kavanaugh, being saved by a strong woman.
What you saw today was everything good about the Senate, good about the country.
And I'll have my differences with Susan Collins going forward.
But this is as close to McCarthyism as I hope I ever witnessed in my life.
And if anybody turned it around, it was Senator Collins.
You know, Senator, you had a moment in this process, too.
And that moment came when they were going the hardest after Judge Kavanaugh.
I don't think any of us will forget anytime soon the things that this man was accused of.
And I saw the outrage even with Susan Collins that remember the accusation by Julie Swetnick was that, well, it's almost on a weekend basis that Judge Kavanaugh and others were routinely drugging girls, lining up in halls, gang raping them, and it happened frequently.
And I know that some people brought up the issue of the judge's temperament.
He addressed it in his Wall Street Journal article that came out last night.
How is one supposed to act if you're innocent to the charge of drugging teenage girls and participating in gang rapes of teenage girls?
I don't know what the appropriate reaction is, but I would think if you're innocent, it is one of deep anger and deep frustration.
18 days ago, nobody thought any of this of Judge Kavanaugh.
Well, yeah, I think most Americans saw a man who was fighting for his family, his reputation, his life.
I did not do this.
Went through a logical explanation based on a calendar that very few people in the world keep except him and his dad and just wanted everybody to know this is not me.
You're trying to ruin my life.
I am not evil.
And I think he reacted consistent with being innocent.
But let me tell you a pivotal moment here.
When the Swetnik allegation came out, it was breaking news.
Allegation number three at a very new and evil level, right?
So I saw it and I read it and I said, it made no sense to me from the very beginning that a person would go to one party where people were drugged and raped and go to two, much less 10.
That made no sense.
So I called Susan.
She said, this sounds bad.
And I said, yeah, Susan, it's going to be this way for a while to come.
Read it.
Here's my take on it.
Being in the law for most of my life, a prosecutor, defense attorney, and a judge, this doesn't have the ring of truth.
She said, you know, that makes sense.
Why would anybody keep going back and putting themselves in that situation and their friends, not tell anybody?
And you've got to remember it's Sabinati.
And she worked through the process.
She took each allegation on its own.
She went through all the major decisions of Judge Kavanaugh and spent a lot of time talking to him.
And this is a exact, every, I think this should be in every civics class in the country.
Every high school student should probably have to listen to Senator Collins' explanation of why she voted the way she did and what the rule of law is all about.
You know, we have an election in 32 days.
To me, Senator, look, when Senator, I know how close you are to Senator McCain, who recently passed away.
And I always admired him for being a war hero.
And I even said I've never regretted, not a day, not a second, supporting him for president in 08 over Barack Obama.
It was the right decision then, and I stand by it today.
I had a lot of disagreements.
When he came back and voted no on the health care repeal, I was frustrated.
And I remember he said to hell with these people on radio and cable TV.
And, you know, I understood Senator McCain.
That's, you know, he kind of had that side of him, and I knew it really well.
But he also talked in that speech, too, about civility.
I don't know if there is not consequences for what has just gone on in the last 18 days.
Political consequences.
I mean, so here are the consequences.
A party that will do anything to maintain power should probably never have it.
The best thing you can do to stop this in the future is deny them their goal of having more Senate seats, more House seats.
They want power too bad.
And what did Susan say?
Listen, I went through the record.
The allegations don't hold water in terms of him being some kind of gang rapist, serial sexual predator.
He is a very reasoned, logical judge.
I looked at everything they said about him.
I compared it to the facts, and I'm voting yes.
Here's what I want the voters to do.
I want the voters to remember what the Democratic Party will do to get power, and that they're being driven by people who would assume somebody guilty simply because they don't like their judicial philosophy.
Remember this, America.
Do you really want these people in charge of your government?
Well, I think that's a great question.
You know, there's something you mentioned earlier.
I saw, I'd never known Susan Collins that well.
I know that, look, the Republican Party is not a monolithic party.
You can we dinner if you want to.
I'd love to.
Actually, I found somebody today that I had no idea the thoroughness under which she makes her decisions, and I respect.
I respect.
I really have a deep respect.
I want everybody to have their own mind.
I'm not even a Republican.
I'm a conservative for reasons that I hold passionate and dear.
But you mentioned something earlier that this was a profile encourage for her.
Right.
In as much as you've been outside in the halls in the Senate, and you see what's going on there and all the protesting, and Maine is not exactly an expensive media market.
And I know they've been spending millions of dollars in Maine to try and influence her, and groups are pledging now to vote her out of office and destroy her.
And I'm like, did anybody listen to what Senator Collins just said?
Did anybody want to listen?
I don't think anybody wanted to hear what she said because it was the single most thorough case for how any senator or congressman should make a decision.
Again, a good example for a civics class to look at in terms of the way a senator should act.
But let's talk about the politics for a moment.
Okay, I talk a lot about Sotomayor and Kagan only because I tried to save a system.
Yeah, you annoyed me on those votes.
No, you more than made up for it.
Well, I don't think I had anything to make up for.
I really, it's okay for you to disagree with me.
I'm not going to run my life around being somebody different.
I'm not going to run my life around what the hell Hannity thinks.
No way.
That's never going to happen.
To be honest with you, I'm going to be true to me.
Aren't you true to you?
Yes, sir.
And I wouldn't expect anything.
I'm going to tell you about Susan Collins.
She's a moderate, pro-choice Republican from New England that represents a party that used to exist in New England in greater numbers.
She is a fiscal conservative.
She voted for the tax bill.
She's a social moderate, and she will do things you won't like in the future.
But whatever she does will be thought out and reasoned.
But here's why I appreciate you talking about Susan Collins today.
She has come as close to anybody in my lifetime of saving the Republic from the abyss because we're headed down where nobody would want to be a judge in the future.
If Susan had legitimized this, God helped the Senate confirmation process.
I agree.
She said it.
It's been in a rapid decline for 30 years.
But I've got to say something to you, Senator.
I don't think any of this would have happened.
I don't think I don't.
Well, I appreciate that, but I'm going to do something without you.
If you let me speak just for a second.
I'm going to do something you'll never hear another politician do, probably.
I'm fine.
You know, I'm fine.
If you can help Susan, help Susan.
They're going to try to destroy her now.
She comes from a purple state.
President Trump lost Maine by a few points.
He won the second congressional district.
But Maine politics are different than they are in South Carolina.
And she was not about Maine herself.
She was about America.
She represents the best of Margaret Chase Smith history of Maine.
And if you really don't be fooled, she's a moderate.
She's not a Sean Hannity conservative.
She's a moderate, but she loves the country, and she's got more guts than most politicians and her little finger than most everybody I know in my business.
She's not afraid.
So help her, Sean.
Tell your viewers to help her.
They're killing her financially.
Senator, help her.
I was so blown away by that speech.
I would absolutely recommend that people help her.
She did something to she has leveled the playing field and brought a voice of sanity, a well-thought-out intellectual, constitutional sanity that stood on core principles of presumption of innocence.
It was beyond impressive to me.
Let me ask you this.
Tell us about Manchin.
Manchin's a yes, too.
Well, Manchin's a yes.
I like Joe, and, you know, he was a yes.
But Susan was the center of the storm.
And I want to say something about Flake.
We've had our differences.
I know the president's had their differences.
But Jeff Flake also is a yes.
Jeff Flake is on the other side of a lot of things with Trump, but he rose to the occasion and say, listen, I want to hear more, but I'm inclined to believe what I believe.
I want to hear from Dr. Ford.
He listened.
He also listened to Kavanaugh.
And the process her and Susan that Flake and Susan created is going to make Kavanaugh a better nominee, more legitimate nominee.
So I want to thank him too.
But at the end of the day, this is about a person, a single person who is sort of the odd person out in politics rising to the occasion and being a giant.
And to the extent I did my part, thank you.
I wanted to stand up for a good man because I've known him for 20 years.
I wanted to let everybody in the country know how despicable, in my eyes, he was being treated and that they had said that.
Senator, this was your finest moment in all the years I've known you.
Good.
Good.
And I have to say that.
Her final moment.
Her final moment.
You're going to join us on Hannity tonight with a full reaction.
It looks like the vote takes place tomorrow at 5.
Thank you, Senator Lindsey Graham.
It wouldn't have happened without you, in my humble opinion.
And you had, again, I think your finest moment ever.
And you've had other great moments as well.
800-941-Sean Tolfrey telephone number.
All right, news roundup information overload hour on the Sean Hannity show.
800-941-Sean Tolfrey telephone number.
You want to be a part of this extravaganza?
Let me go to some of the Democrats here because until this vote is in, I'm not counting any chicken before it hatches.
Yeah, it's looking good.
Yeah, but this is a national disgrace.
And if we don't stop the politics of bludgeon and destroy by the left and you reward them on election day, it's never going to end.
No positive agenda at all for the country, for the people in this country.
You know, just listen to what they say.
Now they got their FBI investigation.
There was nothing more the FBI can do than to talk to the people that were involved as it relates to Professor Ford.
We had her story down pat.
And then Ms. Ramirez they talked to.
And then the people surrounding that case.
There is zero corroboration here.
Anyway, listen to your Democrats, the party of smear and slander and guilt by accusation.
To put it bluntly, it smacks of a whitewash, even a cover-up.
Well, first of all, I mean, those characterizations to me are tantamount to just a sham for perpetrating a sham on the American people.
The whole thing is a sham.
Five days to do the investigation.
And for the FBI, under the instructions from the White House not to talk to that individual, says that this investigation was a complete cover-up, a complete sham.
In your view, is this a fulsome and credible investigation?
It's obviously a cover-up.
Senator, you just read the FBI background report on Kavanaugh.
What are your thoughts?
That's an investigation.
It's a bullshit investigation.
All right, then I also want to play the president as he says, the only reason to vote Democrat is if you're tired of winning, which kind of is true based on what I was describing earlier in the show today.
An unprecedented list of accomplishments that nobody ever discusses because of their daily minute by minute, second by second, weekly by week, week after week, month after month, hatred of all things Trump.
The only reason to vote Democrat is if you are tired of winning.
That's really it.
Because you're winning.
You're winning a lot.
There's never been an administration that in already less than two years.
But can you believe we all did this together?
We're coming up on two years.
Can you believe it?
There has never been an administration with you that's done so much in so little time.
Two years.
No administrations come close.
We went through a lot of that success earlier in the program, and a lot of it bears repeating, by the way.
I mean, these accompany 4 million jobs created since the election.
More Americans now employed than ever recorded in our history.
Unemployment the lowest since 1969.
400,000 new manufacturing jobs.
Those are the jobs Obama said are never coming back.
By the way, things are only going to get better with the explosion in the energy sector.
Once they can get up and online in Anwar and continue coal mining, the president's saving the coal mining industry in West Virginia single-handedly.
And once we continue to extract more natural gas than the world would ever need in 300 years, we have all of those resources.
Now you have 14 states record low unemployment.
You have record low unemployment for Hispanic Americans, African Americans, Asian Americans, youth unemployment 55-year low, median household income, its highest record ever recorded.
You know, we have the lowest unemployment rate ever recorded for Americans without even a high school diploma.
And veterans unemployment has now reached its lowest rate in 20 years.
And 4 million people off of food stamps.
And I can just keep on going.
And then promises about the types of judges he'd put on the court and gutting endless bureaucratic regulation that literally hamstrings all businesses in America.
Promoting, buying, and hiring America, actively promoting and asking people to come and build their factories and manufacturing centers here and creating the economic conditions and the regulatory conditions where it's possible.
I mean, that's why all these manufacturing jobs are coming back, reducing illegal immigration, of course, defeating ISIS, you know, of course, pulling out of that idiotic Iranian deal and little Rocket Man's not firing a missile over Japan every other day.
I'd say that's pretty good.
But we're 32 days out of the election.
A lot can happen between now and then.
John McLaughlin is a pollster, founder of McLaughlin and Associates.
Doug Schoen is with us, also a pollster, author, political analyst for Fox News.
Thank you both for being with us.
Well, we can see, I don't know if you want to call it the Kavanaugh bounce or the Kavanaugh Awakening.
There's in every single state now, Claire McCaskill is down significantly in the latest poll in Missouri.
Joe Donnelly is in trouble in Indiana.
Heidi Hekamp is down at 11 in her state of North Dakota.
I say that Rick Scott will be the next senator from Florida.
And then, of course, Martha McSallie has been surging lately.
Where do you think it stands at this moment, John McLaughlin?
I think you're seeing definitely a Kavanaugh effect, but it's really what it is.
It's the re-engagement of the Trump voters.
Sean, you know, you, Doug, and I talked about two years ago how Trump had to bring new voters in to win the election.
And we did.
Donald Trump ignited millions of new voters who came out and voted in 2016 that didn't vote in 2012, that took a pass on Mitt Romney.
And up until this time, up until the hearing last Thursday, those voters were staying home.
A good portion of them.
A good portion of them weren't engaged.
And I think when they got to see the actual hearing and the news coverage and the character assassination, the ruthless politics, I think the Democrats had looked and Chuck Schumer's a really smart, strategic senator, and he's their leader.
And he looked at the map and he said, there's 35 seats up.
26 are ours.
Heneron states that Donald Trump won.
What can I do to try to take back the majority?
And he probably made a calculation if we can embarrass Kavanaugh, that the Republicans pull him, it would suppress the Trump voters so that a good number of those 63 million would stay home because you only get 90 million come out in the midterm election.
So they made the hit.
The Republicans stuck firm.
The president stuck with them.
And the Democrats were exposed.
These voters are now outraged that the Democrats would put such a late hit on and try to smear a good person who would remind them of their father, their son, their brother, and say, this was totally unfounded, uncorroborated.
There's no evidence to it.
And they're trying to destroy this man and his family.
And the Republicans and independents who supported Trump are coming back out.
And you're seeing them in these polls.
That Missouri poll with McCaskill behind was a poll that we did for a superback.
She's down eight points now.
You're seeing this.
I'm seeing this in polls every day.
It's not a big explosion, but what it is is Trump voters coming back in and getting anti-Trump voters were dominating.
And what was a huge enthusiasm gap just a month ago, less than a month ago, two weeks ago, two and a half weeks ago, has now totally and completely evaporated and conservatives have been awakened.
And by the way, Doug Shoan, the party that we saw protesting and the party that rushes to judgment, the party that doesn't believe in due process, the party that doesn't believe in the presumption of innocence or the need for some corroboration and the party that defended Clinton and defends Keith Ellison.
I don't think they're looking too good here to the American people right now.
And they're being shown to be the radical party I've been describing for some time.
Well, Sean, I mean, I don't quite know how to reply, but I'll give you a couple of answers.
You can just say, I actually agree with your characterization, and their handling of all of this has been pretty stupid and detrimental to, you know, any sense that they have any sense of moderation in this day and age.
Well, I don't think they have any sense of moderation, but what they do have is an ongoing lead in the House, which I think is going to lead to a pickup of the House.
And I think from what I see looking at the Senate races, they're all very, very close within the margin of error.
And I really think to get a definitive answer, we'll have to come back in a week or 10 days after Kavanaugh is, as I think we all expect, narrowly confirmed to see whether the effect John and you are talking about, Sean, is actually going to hold over time.
I think it really has to play out.
And I think there's a good chance that the protests you've seen from the Democrats and from women, like them or not, will continue and will ultimately benefit, particularly in suburban congressional districts, less so Senate races, the Democrats.
How's it going to play with the voter in the rest of the country, not in New York, D.C., San Francisco, and Los Angeles or Illinois or Chicago?
How's it going to play with the rest of America?
I think it's going to play very differently.
I think the real challenge is the one John raised.
I think that's right.
Will this re-engage the Trump voter?
I think as of today, probably some evidence that that is.
Some evidence, a 20-point enthusiasm gap just evaporated in 16 days.
Let's wait a week, Sean, and we'll see where we get to.
You don't think this leaves a bad taste in people's mouths?
What they did to this man, Peter?
Do you support what disgusting?
And as somebody who likes Marathon Harland and thinks he belongs to him.
Hang on, forget that.
What they did to this man and how they bludgeoned this man and his family, as vicious as they've been, with no due process.
And for once, you know how critical I am of Republicans.
They took it with the seriousness the topic deserved.
They handled it properly.
They looked into every crevice and corner, and we still have no corroboration.
Now, do we believe in the presumption of innocence or not?
Are you proud of how the Democrats handle this?
If I can voice support for you, perhaps you'll give me a chance to do that.
I will.
Go ahead.
I say this as somebody who has my own judicial, legal, and philosophical differences with Judge Kavanaugh.
I would not be voting for him, but I do think, Sean, that you are correct that the way this process has played out depresses me as an American first and a Democrat second.
I think the process is destroying the independence of our judiciary, destroying the presumption of innocence, and basically what is destroying what makes our country great.
So we may disagree philosophically, but I'd like to think we stand for the same enduring values.
Listen, Lindsey Graham, who in many ways showed such a profile and courage in this, and I think the deliberate seriousness of Susan Collins, you know, the Republican Party is made up of varying factions that I don't see these factions really existing in the Democratic Party, John.
I mean, you got the extreme left, and then you got the super, duper extreme left, and there's no room for a scoop Jackson.
They even threw Joel Lieberman of all people out of the party.
How do you throw a Joel Lieberman out of your party?
I mean, that's insanity to me.
Oh, absolutely.
And I'll tell you what, Doug Dones makes a point.
You have over four weeks to go, and that's a lifetime in politics.
I mean, remember 2016, the Democrats put the late hit on Bush, or not Bush, pardon me, they did it to Bush with the drunk driving, but they did it with Donald Trump with a tape about women, and people went right through it and realized it was a choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, and they voted for Donald Trump.
And there's voters in the heartland right now that are engaged.
We have to keep them engaged over the next four weeks because when we win again and Kavanaugh gets confirmed, they can think, oh, things are fine now.
I don't think so.
I think everybody understands.
There's a lot at stake here.
All right, we'll stay right there.
We'll continue.
More with John McLaughlin and Doug Schoen, 800-941-SHAWN, our number.
All right, as we wrap up with our pollsters, we'll be checking in with them often now, 32 days out of Election Day, and I think the most important midterms in our lifetime.
John McLaughlin, Doug Schoen are with us.
All right, Doug, predictions.
What's going to happen?
I think Kavanaugh is going to be confirmed.
You will have the Republicans holding the Senate narrowly and the Democrats winning the House by plus 30, plus 35 seats.
Wow, that's a huge prediction for the Democrats.
I don't think there's any scenario that I could discount 32 days out of this election.
I think anything can happen.
And I hope the American people see what they're electing in Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, and Chuck Schumer.
That's my biggest hope, John McLaughlin.
I think you're right.
And in terms of it's just four weeks out, over four weeks to go, and a lot can happen.
But I will tell you that the key thing is Donald Trump is putting the Republicans on his shoulders and bringing them across the finish line in that he's bringing his votes to bear.
But his voters are coming back out.
But the key thing is his two real opponents right now are Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer.
He needs to take them on.
They are going to be a nightmare if they get control of either house for next year.
So what we've got to do is Nancy Pelosi in our last national survey had a 55% unfavorable rating.
I mean, 55% would be a landslide for the Republicans, and they could hold the House.
So right now, we're headed to gain seats in the Senate, but it's too early on the House.
And prior to Kavanaugh, it looked like we were going to lose the House.
But with that kind of a negative on Pelosi, for her to be the leader to oppose Donald Trump every day for the next two years through his reelection, he needs to take her on every day about them wanting to raise taxes on the economy, have open borders, having a back to the elites where the swamp runs the country again.
So if he does that over the next four weeks, the Republicans could hold the House and they'll definitely pick up Senate seats.
All right.
Thank you both.
John McLaughlin and Doug Shoan, 800-941-Sean, Tolfrey, telephone number.
We'll continue.
We'll have our Florida, Georgia line Zach Brown concert series when we get back, and we'll continue with Jesse Lee Peterson, Reverend C. O'Brien, and much more as this Friday edition of the Sean Hannity Show moves along.
I hope everybody remembers the anger that they've been feeling this week.
Listen, Griff Jenkins last night for Hannity on the TV show actually went out in the middle of these mob protesters asking them a simple question.
Do you believe in the presumption of innocence?
Listen.
Do you feel that he was afforded the presumption of innocence?
This is a job interview, and the question is about the evidence that's presented and the credibility of her claim.
Do you believe that Judge Kavanaugh had presumption of innocence, got a fierce shake in the hearing?
No.
I think that he didn't give himself a fair share because he lied the entire time.
Do you believe Judge Kavanaugh was given the presumption of innocence?
Is this a court of law?
Why do you believe Judge Kavanaugh shouldn't be confirmed?
I feel like he lied multiple times.
He acted crazy.
Clearly, there has been enough allegations swirling around that we know that this job application needs to be denied.
Judge Kavanaugh wasn't given his fair presumption of innocence.
So this is the first time that we're going to be able to do that.
I think that Judge Kavanaugh and the FBI investigation refused the investigation.
You really did not want it.
That is not the behavior of someone who understands like that as a man's benefit to say, let's discover the truth.
Do you believe that he was given a fair chance in his confirmation?
A fair chance.
This man is sitting amongst friends of his.
And the public is the people who should be making decisions about what they need and what they deserve.
Not the f ⁇ ing rich white man who doesn't give a f ⁇ about us.
Because there are allegations of sexual assault against him that quite likely are true.
I believe they are true, but it hasn't been proven yet one way or the other.
This is a job interview.
There's no presumption of innocence in a job interview.
And in your mind, Judge Kavanaugh failed that.
Absolutely.
He failed the job.
And Jeffy.
This is nothing short of a desperate grab by the old white male rich patriarchy.
In my view, Judge Kavanaugh made it pretty clear that he does not have the judicial temperament.
He believes the Supreme Court is just one more political football.
That's not what the Supreme Court is about.
And I think in that hearing, Judge Kavanaugh disqualified himself.
That is 32 days.
You're 32 days away.
That is the base of the Democratic Party.
That is who people like Nancy Pelosi are appealing to.
Chuck Schumer's appealing to.
Maxine Waters is appealing to.
And of course, Michael Lavanatti, the new face of the Democratic Party.
What has happened to the old Democratic Party?
Party that once believed in tax cuts, stood up for the working men and women in this country, didn't believe in socialism, believed in civil liberties and the presumption of innocence and due process.
Where did they go?
All right, joining us now, the Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson, founder of Rebuilding the Man by Rebuilding.
I'm sorry, Rebuilding the Family by Rebuilding the Man, author of the Antidote, Healing America from the Poison of Hate, Blame, and Victimhood.
Reverend C.L. Bryant is also with us, The Race for Freedom.
He's also a senior fellow at Freedom Works.
Welcome both of you back to the program.
And Jesse, I guess you're heading out on the road and you got a big panel you're going to be a part of.
Where's that?
How you doing, Sean?
On October 23rd at 7 p.m., my nonprofit organization, Bond, the Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny, going to be holding a town hall forum and panel on the midterm election.
And so for more information on that, people can go to jesseleipeterson.com, jesseleapeterson.com.
And we're going to be talking with Democrats and Republicans and independents about this upcoming election because a lot of people are really, really upset at what happened with Judge Kavanaugh.
Even people who at one time thought that they were going to be voting for the Democrats, they're starting to rethink their position.
And I have to tell you, Sean, I grew up on a plantation down in Alabama.
I grew up, I was born there.
I grew up under the Jim Crow laws.
I remember black and white sides only.
When I voted at 18, I voted for the Democratic Party.
I was freer growing up on that plantation, living under Jim Crow law than I was as a Democrat.
Democrats don't like for you to have free thoughts.
They don't like for you to take care of yourself.
They lie to you about the Republican Party and especially the straight white conservative Christian male.
They're always calling them racist.
And they use those words to brainwash you in order to enslave you.
And the beauty about, if there isn't a beauty in this, about what's happening with the judge and the hatred and the anger and the accusations, false accusations without proof, that we have seen over these last couple weeks or a month or so, even longer than that, even a lot of black people are starting to think about the Democratic Party.
And they're starting to realize, especially the Christians, they're starting to realize maybe they are involved with the wrong party and that the party, the Democratic Party, is not like the party that they joined many, many years ago.
And I think a lot of folks are being affected by this.
You know, C.L. Bryant, if I remember correctly, weren't you part of the NAACP for a number of years?
Sean, I'm a two-term president of the NAACP in Garland, Texas.
And by the way, you may not know it.
I'm a life member.
I became a life member.
I was at an event in Atlanta, and it just so happens I said, but please, the next time take politics out.
If a man like Clarence Thomas is advancing and is succeeding at the highest level, please, please support him.
I said that when I paid my membership fee, I have the card here somewhere.
Absolutely right, Sean.
And what we're seeing now are the fake activists who are hitting the street.
I remember when I was president, and I'm going to disclose this, that there were times when we would load up 10 buses full of activists by simply giving them $10 and a tuna fish sandwich and a drink to get on the bus to go protest something that they had no clue what it was that they were going to protest.
And that's what you're seeing on the streets now, and that is fake.
It is something that will not stop.
Freedom Works, the organization that I am with, we have grassroots activists who are in the Capitol right now, who are checking on their congressmen and their senators to make certain that they ride heard on this particular vote.
We want Kavanaugh to come through.
Last week, Freedom Works, we had 2,000 people on the Capitol grounds pushing through not only Jim Jordan, who I hope can be the next Speaker of the House, but also we wanted those elected officials who should be responsible to the American people for the offices they hold to make sure that they go and do the job that we sent them to do.
It's a long way from when I was president of the NAACP 27 years ago to where I am now.
And that plantation that Reverend Peterson was talking about, that Jesse Lee was talking about, by the way, Jesse Lee is in my movie, Runaway Slave.
Jesse Lee.
Why am I not in your movie?
What's up with that?
You and I have to make the next film together, Sean.
We have to make the next film.
No, no, no.
I'm just wondering why you picked Jesse and you didn't pick your good old friend Sean Hannity.
You're my good buddy.
You got to come on the show real soon.
But that plantation was real.
I grew up in Louisiana during that same Jim Crow era.
It's very real.
But many of us have run away from it.
And we encourage many more at this point in time in America.
And the president is giving us all the cover that's necessary to run away from that type of enslavement that this nation had fallen up under.
You know, to add to that, the beauty of what President Trump has done is that because he lacked fear, he's put the country first.
He's not afraid to really deal with these people.
He's not afraid to use social media to put the truth out there.
And this president is encouraging a lot of men and women, especially those of good, to stand up and speak up, fight for their country, fight for what is right.
And when they saw this attack on Judge Kavanaugh, his wife, his daughters, while they're saying that they care about women, they care about children, where's the love and compassion for the judge and his wife?
His children are going to have to deal with these allegations.
This whole thing has to now.
Look, we've got to get through the vote tomorrow.
And I'm cautiously optimistic that Judge Kavanaugh gets to be on the court that he deserves to be on.
But if we don't deal with these tactics, the willingness to tear down, bludgeon, destroy men, families, kids are obviously impacted by it.
If they can't even have the most simplest of civility on these issues, you know, the American people need to see it, know it, get it, understand it, embrace what they would be voting for.
It's horrible.
You know, destroying people, it's horrible.
How many more people have to go through a Clarence Thomas, Judge Kavanaugh, Robert Bork?
How many Republicans are falsely accused of being racist and wanting to kill their grandmothers?
It's ridiculous at this point.
And they do it with literally with immune, it's total immunity for them.
There are no repercussions for this conduct.
Anyway, Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson, thank you.
Reverend C.L. Bryan, thank you.
And we wish you both the best.
As the countdown now continues, we'll know almost this time tomorrow.
Did Judge Kavanaugh get on the court looking a lot better than it did earlier in this week?
▲
Export Selection