Kayleigh McEnany, author of "The New American Revolution: The Making of a Populist Movement" and Jeffrey Lord, Former associate political director in the Reagan administration, columnist and author of the book, "What America Needs: The Case for Trump," discuss the reinstatement of Acosta’s press credentials. Is it time for the White House to do away with the White House press corps? 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.
You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
We got you.
I'm Carol Markowitz and I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
We've been around the block in media and we're doing things differently.
Normally is about real conversations.
Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
Join us every Tuesday and Thursday, normally, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
All right, glad you're with us.
Happy Friday.
Why do I feel on this Friday for the first time in a long time that I'm glad it's Friday?
And I like, I'm beginning to feel the sense that I'm going to wind down and, you know, relax and maybe even enjoy the weekend.
Wow.
I just feel that way.
Linda, do you feel that way too?
I feel that way every day.
All right, 800-941-Sean Tolfrey, telephone number.
You want to be a part of the program.
All right, we have a lot to get to.
I am fascinated by the judges' ruling in this case with Acosta.
It's not anything like, as usual, what the media is trying to spin and tell you.
And it leaves so many openings.
And if you're reading it between the lines a little more carefully in terms of what's reported in terms of what the judges said, it's really, it's just interesting to me.
It just, it fascinates me.
So we'll get to that today.
We've got a lot of infighting.
Democratic meltdown has already begun.
They're about to crush each other.
And it's going to be pretty entertaining to watch.
I'm getting so scared for the people of California.
I got to tell you that there was another death.
Well, more deaths.
They're up to 63 people have been dead.
The missing list, meaning missing people, is 631 names.
Now, the president's heading out this weekend and has offered federal assistance.
I know a lot of people got mad when he had tweeted out that they should have been cleaning out the brush in the Department of Forestry or whatever.
That when I found out there were 130 million dead trees and all these crazy environmental laws don't allow controlled burns and don't allow the cutting down of dead trees.
I mean, all you're doing is creating, you know, the kindling that would allow this to continue.
And I don't, it makes no sense to me.
Even if you're an environmentalist, you've got to look at the smoke, the damage to the environment now while this is all out of control.
This is, they haven't even gotten 50% of either one of these fires in northern or southern California under control at this hour.
It's frightening.
And all the billions and billions and billions of dollars in damage and homes lost, lives lost, missing people, the amount of work that this is taking to get this fire under control.
It's really horrible.
And there's got to be a better answer.
It's got to be the way.
I don't want to sound like Smokey the Bear to prevent these forest fires.
I mean, you look at this from some of the helicopter view shots that I've seen on the news, and I'm like, this is insane.
We've got to do better than this.
And we can do better than this.
And it has to be.
Why would anybody object to cutting down dead trees?
It made absolutely no sense.
That was a conscious decision made by some people.
And I think the money had been allocated for it.
And I think it was Jerry Brown who said, no, I'm not blaming him for it.
But I do think when this is said and done, you better come up with a sensible policy that can protect the people and their property in California from this ever happening again.
We've had a lot of these things happen.
You know, if you get the wrong winds coming at the wrong time, these Santa Ana winds that keep flying in.
I mean, it is, you know, you're literally moving fires in a, you know, half a mile direction and igniting even more fires and more flames.
Pretty chilling.
I want to start, though, with what is going on in Florida.
By the way, it is now confirmed.
It is going to be Rick DeSantis now is, has been declared, Ron DeSantis has been declared the winner in Florida.
So we're watching that.
We know that Brian Kemp in Georgia will be declared the winner.
We expect today, too.
And never mind that after a recount in Georgia, after losing the Georgia's governor's race by more than 50,000 votes, Stacey Abrams wants a complete do-over now of the entire election.
And Mayor Gillum, he's not conceding in any way, even though he has no mathematical chance, nor does Bill Nelson for that matter.
Do you know that in Broward County, in the recount, the machine recount that they had to do for the governor's race, because it didn't meet the threshold for a hand recount like the senator's race, that they didn't get the votes in until two minutes after the hour?
And the judge in that case said, well, that means Palm Beach and Broward, the only two counties, again, that can't get the job done, the ones that never abided by Florida law, didn't respect Florida's Constitution.
So get this.
Rick Scott would have picked up about 800 more votes.
He's already picked up 800 votes as a part of the other recount.
So his lead is now about 13,500 or 400.
So he would have gotten another 800.
And here's the problem.
He's in a position, what is he going to now sue Broward County over that?
Then we're going to have to do the whole thing all over again.
And it's just never going to end.
But they did it at two minutes after.
They were done, finished with the recount, machine recount at 3 yesterday in the afternoon.
And it had to be uploaded to the Secretary of State's office by 4.
They got it in at 4.02.
That means it doesn't count.
And that would have benefited Rick Scott almost 800 votes.
It's unbelievable.
Sorry, the suspicious nature in me just thinks that if you had the results an hour before and you didn't get them uploaded in an hour, that should have been simple, basic, fundamental uploads.
Not that hard to do.
Even I could do it in an hour.
And I don't like to do anything with computers.
I hate computers.
I don't even like to download apps on computers.
It's not so hard now because I use the fingerprint thing.
And it makes it much easier.
Once you set that up, you're golden.
I mean, it's how bad it is.
And then you go back to Georgia and Stacey Abrams' campaign, they're not going to concede, just like Gillum won't concede.
He's now lost.
And Abrams, they're preparing an unprecedented legal challenge in the governor's race, which now we know it is Brian Kemp that would leave the state Supreme Court deciding whether to force another round of voting there.
And then you have Abrams' campaign chairwoman who's overseeing the team of what, three dozen lawyers who in coming days are going to draft this petition that along with a ream of affidavits from voters and would-be voters who say they were disenfranchised.
Well, Abrams would then, well, is there 50,000 people claiming they've been disenfranchised?
And how have they been disenfranchised?
And Abrams would then decide whether to go to court under provision of Georgia election law that allows losing candidates to challenge the results based on misconduct, fraud, irregularities, et cetera, et cetera.
Abrams would assert there are enough irregularities that have occurred to raise the possibility that there are at least 18,000 Georgians either that had their ballots thrown out or not allowed to vote.
And since Election Day, Abrams campaign workers have now transitioned from get out the vote efforts to helping voters determine whether their ballots were counted and documented reporting problems.
It is an insurmountable number.
Now, there was one report that I saw that in Fulton County that showed a vast number of provisional ballots submitted.
Fulton County, more of a Democratic stronghold, rejected for duplicate ballots.
What are we now going to count two of them?
I mean, you had 1,556 duplicate ballots.
I mean, that's insanity.
And, you know, nobody's seen, look, we have got to fix this problem.
And Republicans better look at this as the canary in the coal mine for what Democrats would want to do come 2020 and the reelection of Donald Trump.
You know, so we had the conclusion of the machine recount.
Now, Senator Scott's lead grew by 865 votes.
His now total margin is 13,427.
Now, in that race, the manual recount will begin.
I've been told by people on the ground this morning that they're going to look for overvotes, undervotes.
In other words, there might be people that voted for governor, but they didn't vote in the Senate race.
Okay, then they're going to look at the ballot.
Was there any intention to fill in the oval or not fill in the oval?
And the problem then is Democratic lawyers are going to see a little mark at the bottom right-hand corner, not at the top left-hand corner, and they're going to say, they see that little dot there.
That was an intention to vote up there.
And that's how it goes.
They don't care about the truth.
They just want the win.
That's when they went down there for a win.
So, but the recount, listen, mathematically, this cannot ever go to Bill Nelson.
It's just not going to happen.
But it closed the margin of size.
And then if you would have added the 800 from Broward County that would have gone to Rick Scott, well, that would have been, you know, 14,200 votes that he would have a lead.
You know, look, I know people don't like losing.
I get it.
You know, I prefer to win everything.
I don't like to lose.
I mean, we've got a, in spite of Obama winning two terms, one of the, Obama was a blessing to Republicans all around the country.
I mean, his first midterm, he lost six Senate seats and 63 House seats.
He said, you know, a near record.
I mean, when we thought Clinton got blown out in his first midterm election, because he lost eight Senate seats and 52 House seats.
So, you know, historically speaking, Trump did pretty good.
It was well worth his time to go out there and campaign so hard as he did in Florida and Missouri and Indiana and North Dakota.
Came pretty close in Montana and a couple of other places.
You don't win them all.
I didn't like when Obama won and then won reelection.
I especially thought that he could have been beaten in 2012 more than 2008.
But, you know, it doesn't always go your way.
And people were so concerned that Donald Trump was going to be the guy that whined and complained and not accept the election results and that's going to create chaos.
No, the sore losers here are the Democrats.
You know, many, is Bill Nelson ever going to respect the will of the voters and show a little bit of graciousness?
Same thing in Georgia.
Same thing with Mayor Gillum and bring the process to an end.
You know, one thing one of the judges said that, you know, this Florida election, these problems that continue are making Florida a laughingstock.
It's not making the people of Florida a laughingstock.
It's making the people that control these elections a laughingstock.
And the people of Florida deserve better than what Broward and Palm Beach County keep doing to them.
It's not Florida that's the problem.
It's not the people of Florida that are the problem.
It's these few people in charge that run these elections, but only in two of the 67 counties.
And the fact that they, you know, pull this crap year in and year out and they don't abide by the law of the Constitution and they get away with it is fairly unbelievable.
You know, if you look at there's a stark difference in the lawsuits filed by Scott and his Florida team and Nelson, because the lawsuits filed by the Scott campaign, they're there to make sure that Florida law, which is designed to prevent voter fraud, is followed.
If you look at the lawsuits filed by the Democrats and Nelson's campaign and National Democrats and good old Mark Elliott from Clinton's campaign, they want the Florida laws disregarded and in an effort to count ballots that were never lawful and conduct that was never adhered to.
That's what they're looking for.
All right, well, I'll have a lot more on this.
Interesting decision as it relates to Jim Acosta, not what you think, not a First Amendment issue, you know, due process issue.
And it raises, I got an idea.
I wonder if they can set up rules, standards for people that work in the White House or maybe just move them out of the White House into the old executive office building.
I think it was Nixon that first, you know, literally the White House press room is over a swimming pool that still exists.
I know because I've been down, I've seen it.
I've seen the area where it is.
There are so many reasons to be a grateful nation, and in large part, we have our military and our veterans to thank for our liberties and freedom.
National Wreaths Across America Day is Saturday, December 15th.
You can join in the mission to remember our fallen heroes, honor those who currently serve and their families, and teach younger generations the value of freedom.
A $15 donation to Wreaths Across America sponsors a fresh handmade balsam wreath from Maine with a single red bow.
The Veterans Wreaths have become a gift of America's respect.
The circular wreath with 10 balsam bouquets is a catalyst for unity, healing, and an expression of gratitude.
What started with America's most hollowed ground at Arlington National Cemetery has grown to ceremonies at close to 1,500 other participating locations across the country and overseas.
Sponsor a Veterans Wreath today and show your appreciation.
Visit www.wreatsacrossamerica.org.
That's www.wreatsacrossamerica.org.
All right, as we roll along, Sean Hannity show, glad you're with us.
A lot of news out there.
We'll get to this ruling in just a minute.
But back to Florida for just a second.
So you got one campaign, the Scott campaign.
They want to make sure Florida law designed to prevent voter fraud is followed.
You have the other campaign, the Nelson campaign.
They and their National Democrats and the money they're pouring, they just, their goal is to disregard the law in an effort to count unlawful ballots.
That's all it's been.
Even with the attorneys, well, that's an illegal, that person was illegal, not allowed by law to vote.
We object.
We want that counted.
You know, other reports come out.
Democratic Party engaged in a scheme to alter election forms to deceive voters regarding deadlines of submitting votes.
And Democrats even admitted plans to fraudulently mislead Florida voters in anticipation of ballots submitted after the legal deadline if they can convince a judge to disregard Florida election law.
Now, Nelson can either stay silent as he has in favor of what is organized fraud on his legal team's part of the Democratic Party's part, or he would do the right thing and demand that just follow the laws.
You know, this is much bigger now than anything else.
This is now what are we going to establish for 2020 in the state of Florida and the presidential race that'll happen down there.
If Republicans don't get their act together and see the handwritings on the wall and understand what's at stake, then we're going to have problems not only there, but in other places as well.
You know, the voters of Florida have spoken.
Rick Scott is going to be their new senator.
We now have Ron DeSantis.
He's been declared the winner.
Same with Brian Kemp should be declared the winner in about an hour in Georgia.
So, you know, it's, you know, you look at the ruling by Mark Walker and, you know, allowing mismatch ballot signatures fixed by 5 p.m. Saturday.
Okay, that's 11 days after.
11 days after.
And the Scott team immediately filed notice.
It's a baseless ruling.
And, you know, I'm pretty sure that they'll win on appeal when it gets to the 11th Circuit, but we'll see.
How did Brenda Snipes keep her job?
How is that even possible?
All right, we've got the other news of the day.
Latest on the caravan.
The judge's ruling in the Acosta case is misinterpreted, I think, by many in the left-wing media.
We'll get to that.
We'll get to your calls, 800-941-Sean as we continue this Friday.
All right, 25 till the top of the hour.
Happy Friday.
Glad you are with us.
I still have a lot more to get in on Florida here.
I want to get to that.
Let me just deviate for a few moments here because I found this pretty fascinating.
The whole case of CNN, Jim Acosta, against the White House.
And the headline is a judge orders the White House to reinstate Acosta's press credentials.
And I want to, and the judge in this case is a guy by the name of Judge Kelly is his name.
I want to emphasize the very limited nature of this ruling, he said, in granting what is only a temporary restraining order in favor of allowing Acosta to keep the press credentials.
And the White House said they'll abide by the federal judge's order, restore the press pass.
And they also insisted there must be decorum at the White House.
I think it was when was the first, I think it was 1974 when they first had the press corps in that White House press room.
It used to be a swimming pool, I think that FDR or somebody had put in there.
The pool is still there, ironically.
There's a big wall that anybody that's ever been in that part of the White House signs.
I signed it at some point during the Bush years.
I don't even remember where.
Anyway, the judge did not rule on whether the administration violated, and I think this is key because I don't think this ever was a First Amendment issue in any way, shape, matter, or form.
I thought everybody that tried to portray it this way or argued it this way, I just disagreed with it.
And the judge didn't rule whether the administration violated the First Amendment rights of Acosta, the network and Acosta arguing that the administration didn't like the questions Acosta asked and therefore revoked the pass, committing what's known as viewpoint discrimination, which they are arguing prohibited the First Amendment.
The president actually answered the statement.
I don't even see it as a question of Acosta, which is migrants and whether or not there's an invasion, et cetera.
And the president even said, well, we just disagree.
Let's play the exchange just so everybody is up to speed here on Acosta.
Let's play that.
If I may ask one other question.
Mr. President, if I may ask one other question, are you worried?
That's enough.
That's enough.
Mr. President, I'm going to ask one of the other folks.
That's enough.
Pardon me, ma'am.
Mr. President, that's enough.
Ms. President, that's enough.
Put down the mic.
Mr. President, are you the media coverage?
Set a new record and a new standard.
One, I was tempted to ask you why you like Oprah so much, but I think I'll go on to the question that.
Why do I like Oprah?
What kind of a question is it?
Yeah, just asking.
Just curious.
But the real question.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I wanted to challenge you on one of the statements that you made in the tail end of the campaign in the midterms.
Here we go.
Well, if you don't mind, Mr. President, that this caravan was an invasion.
As you know, Mr. President.
I consider it to be an invasion.
As you know, Mr. President, the caravan was not an invasion.
It's a group of migrants moving up from Central America towards the border with the U.S. Thank you for telling me that.
And why did you characterize it as such?
Because I consider it an invasion.
You and I have a difference of opinion.
Honestly, I think you should let me run the country.
You run CNN.
And if you did it well, your ratings are not.
Let me ask you a question.
Mr. President, if I may ask one other question, are you worried about it?
That's enough.
That's enough.
The other folks are asking.
That's enough.
Pardon me, ma'am.
Excuse me.
That's enough.
Mr. President, if I may ask.
I'll tell you what, CNN should be ashamed of itself having you working for them.
You are a rude, terrible person.
You shouldn't be working for CNN.
Go ahead.
I think that's unfair.
You're a very rude person.
The way you treat Sarah Huckabee is horrible.
And the way you treat other people are horrible.
You shouldn't treat people that way.
Go ahead.
Go ahead, Peter.
In Jim's defense, I've traveled with him and watched him.
He's a diligent reporter who busts.
Well, I'm not a big fan of yours either.
So to be honest.
I mean, from my vantage point, very entertaining.
But think about what's said here.
I want to challenge you on a statement that you made at the end of the campaign about this being an invasion.
Then the definitive statement, it was not an invasion.
Well, that's an opinion.
And the president said, well, I just disagree with you about it, and that's how I view it.
Now, why is the president saying that?
Because he sees thousands and thousands of people that literally knocked down a fence and crossed across the border illegally into Mexico.
And for the president to wait till everyone gets here to deal with the situation, that's just not reality on how anything works.
So in my view, that's opinion.
That is a stated opinion, wanting a debate, got a question answered.
Well, it's my view on it.
We just disagree on it.
We just have a difference of opinion.
And there's the answer.
And how many times does a president have to say that's enough?
That's enough, that's enough.
Because he got the question anyway.
So it's a question, I think, for the White House's decorum, as Sarah Huckabee said.
But the judge did not rule on, it's a very limited ruling, very limited nature of the ruling.
And he did not rule on anything that any First Amendment right was violated.
And the argument is, you know, about revoking the past.
They got the temporary restraining order, and the judge did say that he has not determined if the First Amendment was violated in the case.
And he said that Acosta had shown that they were likely to succeed more in their argument on Fifth Amendment rights to due process that were violated by the White House.
Now, this is where legally things get very interesting for me.
Because under D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision, in other words, we call it precedence.
If you notice, anytime a Supreme Court nominee goes before the Senate judiciary, they will be asked, do you believe in precedent?
Usually has to do with, will you respect Roe v. Wade is just their way of asking that question.
Anyway, and most will say they do consider precedent to be important.
And anyway, the judge, Judge Kelly in this case, said that the government must provide due process if they're going to revoke his press pass.
It was based on a D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision from 1977.
It was the Cheryl v. Knight case, where the court said that journalists must at least be given notice and a chance to rebut the government's decision to revoke their credentials.
And in court on earlier today, the judge said the government couldn't even tell him who made the decision to revoke the pass.
And the president's comments at the press conference could not be the notice that he said would have been necessary to withstand the precedent in the earlier case.
So it's not the win the way that everybody in the media has been spinning this.
And so the White House, you know, they said they'd abide by the decision.
Kelly is going to probably weigh in further on the decision, and we'll find out what happens in all of this.
But it's not going to be, I think, what everyone thought this was going to be, some big First Amendment showdown.
The other issue is, is, you know, will the White House set up different rules now?
Will the White House have due process or a process if they're going to withdraw somebody's press credentials?
For example, what if they say every person in the White House has to agree that they get one and only one question?
This way, the other people in the room, many that wanted to get called on, that they'll have their chance to get called on.
Another big part of it is the judge is clear that there's no obligation at all by the president, by Sarah Sanders, or anybody at the White House to let anyone in that press room ask a question.
They're not obligated to pick on anybody.
Hey, Sean.
Yes, well.
Can I interrupt for a second?
It's very on topic.
So Jonathan Gillum wrote an op-ed on our website today, and it's all about maybe we take away this whole press corps and we give it back to the American people and do something like, you know, a Twitter Live or a Facebook Live or something like that, where he could take questions from the American people who really just want the answers as opposed to the filter.
Well, I was going to make a case here that maybe they end White House press conferences altogether.
I was going to make a case.
Why do they have to have it in that area?
They could just move it to the old executive office building, which I'll get to in a second if you didn't interrupt me like that.
But listen, we're just, we're thinking along.
It's a synergy.
We're thinking along.
I'm merely here to help.
That's all.
Anyway, so as he's offering his view on the components of the request, he says he may not agree with the underlying case law that CNN's argument was based on.
He says, I've read the case closely, and whether it's what I agree with, that's a different story, but I must apply the precedent as I see it.
Those words were crucial here.
And I think it's an indication of where at least the judge's mind is currently heading.
And he criticized last week, you know, this as being shrouded in mystery, meaning that the Justice Department lawyer in the case didn't even know who, quote, ordered the decision, but he said he's not making any judgment on First Amendment claims that he was requested to make a judgment on.
He did note that Sarah Sanders' initial claim that he had inappropriately trussed was, okay, I didn't see that myself, but that's a different ballgame for a different day.
Now, but think about this.
Why is there any obligation for anybody in the press?
Well, you don't want to answer questions.
I don't know where in the, you know, freedom of the press doesn't stop anybody from covering the White House, the comings and goings, how many interviews.
There's no set constitutional law that says any president has to have any press conferences or any press secretary has any conferences.
They could change the whole process because what my thinking, for some people in that room on the left, I think that have very different agendas, you know, especially some of these left-wing so-called news channels, they have a different agenda.
And for, you know, somebody, some of them to get into a battle or a fight with Sarah Sanders or the president, that is their goal, their manna from heaven for the day.
And they create it and they're putting on a show.
What if they submitted questions and they were answered in a briefing that were hand that was handed out every day?
That could always be a possibility.
So now that we have another judge, you know, in this case, it'll be interesting to see where he goes on the first versus the Fifth Amendment down the road when he gets more extensive in his ruling here.
But, you know, you think about there's nothing in the Constitution that requires any president to hold a press conference.
There's nothing that requires any president to allow any one of these people in there to ask any questions.
Those press briefings are, frankly, are merely a tradition that started with FDR, who would invite a handful of friendly reporters into the Oval Office, ask a few questions whenever they wanted to get their message out.
There were no TV cameras.
TVs not that available then.
FDR's press briefings weren't broadcast on radio.
Everything that FDR said was off the record.
You know, they wouldn't even photograph FDR in his wheelchair way back then.
They thought images like that would make the president look weak.
And so it's an evolving process, but it's one that I don't, you could go back and you could cite as precedents, you know, not having, having everything off the record or putting everything in writing now that we have computers and the ability to communicate in a whole variety of different ways.
You know, thanks to reporters who are trying to be responsible, you know, the American people didn't even have an idea that he was incapable of walking.
I mean, the press was well known to know a lot about the private life of John F. Kennedy and it wasn't told.
I can assure you that there would be many options available if any administration wanted to do it.
By the way, I didn't get enough, I didn't get more deeply into some of this additional issues in Florida.
I want to get back to Palm Beach refused to provide information to the public.
They refused to allow official party representatives into the ballot counting area and force people to stand behind a glass wall.
Now, on Friday, Judge Ruled in favor of Governor Scott granted that injunction.
I mean, you look at what's gone on in this election and that the Board of Election Supervisor, in that case, Susan Busher, to submit overvoted, undervoted absentee ballots to the Palm Beach County Canvassing Board for an open public view of each vote before they're counted.
But even with that order, the Palm Beach supervisor failed.
In Broward County, the supervisor of elections, Brenda Snipes, rampant history of election fraud, judge ruling just this year, she violated state and federal laws by illegally destroying ballots in 2016.
We've seen that, you know, many concerning examples of this, including mixing unlawful provisional ballots with a pile of lawful ballots, leaving behind materials like empty boxes marked provisional ballot box, and the Broward County Canvassing Board continuing to count ballots in violation of state law more than an hour after Saturday's noon deadline.
I mean, all of these, how long are they going to do this to the people of Florida?
It looks like the outcome is a fait accompli, though.
And that outcome is clear.
It's going to be, we now have the winner in the governor's race.
That's Ron DeSantis, and Rick Scott will be the next senator.
It's a matter of are any of these Democrats ever going to concede.
The same thing in Georgia with Stacey Abrams, as Brian Kemp now will be the governor-elect of Georgia.
When are they going to concede?
Imagine if Donald Trump didn't concede.
This is a monumental defining moment this week when you have someone like Cosby going to prison and then in the same breath having Kavanaugh possibly going to the highest court in the land.
I am blown away.
Before I saw this stuff, I'm like, oh, come on, what could be in this guy's yearbook?
Like, a little nonsense.
This is sick stuff.
Right.
The devil's triangle in your yearbook forever and ever.
These people in Congress right now in that Senate Judiciary Committee, these white men, old, by the way, are not protecting women.
They're protecting a man who is probably guilty.
Not only do women like Dr. Ford, who greatly comes forward, need to be heard, but they need to be believed.
They need to be believed.
I just want to say to the men of this country, just shut up and step up.
Do the right thing.
Let me just say right at the outset, I believe Dr. Ford.
I believe the survivor here.
I believe her.
I stand with her.
Do you hope she shows up on Monday?
Do you hope that she shows up?
I don't think she should be bullied into this scenario where it's a he said, she said.
It's a sham hearing.
And I don't think she should participate in it.
It's definitely attempted rape.
I don't see it any other way.
It was very upsetting to hear this, very disappointing.
If it proves to be true, I will disavow him.
I think he should take a polygraph test just to clear the air.
I think that that would help him.
And then we'll see what happens.
What drives me crazy is the hypocrisy in these moments when it's who you like that you want to believe.
And I think if you believe in due process with Kavanaugh, you should also believe in due process with Michael Avenatti.
We don't know a lot.
We don't know who the alleged victim is.
But if true, I, you know, I'm so disappointed.
I'm so disappointed.
And I agree with you.
We would have to disavow him.
All right.
What a different tone you get from the media.
Glad you're with us.
Hour two, Sean Hannity Show, 800-941, Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
What a difference in take and in attitude.
If it's Judge Kavanaugh, somebody you have a political agenda against, it's I believe you men sit down and shut up.
I believe it's guilty, guilty of rape, guilty of this.
And now we had on Wednesday of this week, Michael Avenatti, who brought forward the most salacious charges against Judge Kavanaugh vis-a-vis a client, Julie Switnick.
We'll get it to that in a second.
But he was booked on suspicion of domestic felony, domestic violence.
And he has vehemently denied allegations saying, I've never struck a woman.
I will never strike a woman.
And I've been an advocate for women's rights my whole career.
And he said it's completely bogus.
Now he's claiming apparently that it's somehow political.
I don't see what the political nature of it is, but that's neither here nor there.
We found ourselves as a country, and I actually think the Republicans during the Kavanaugh hearing, they, for once, because they often screw things up royally, they treated these allegations, albeit last minute.
Democrats held on to them, you know, for what, two months at the time, sat on them, didn't bring them up.
And all of a sudden, last minute, we're getting to the eve of the vote.
Then they bring up this, and then new charges come up.
And then another, then Michael Avenatti comes out with Julie Swetnick.
So the Republicans said, okay, they put a pause on the hearings, brought back Professor Ford and also Judge Kavanaugh, now Justice Kavanaugh of the Supreme Court.
And we saw what happened with him and we saw the impact it had on his family.
And each case, one by one, when you started digging down into the allegation, in his case, 36 years ago, and in the case of Professor Ford, for example, she had identified an eyewitness to the incident that had happened when he was back in high school.
And in that case, the eyewitness said that never happened.
I don't recall it ever happening ever in any way, nor did anyone else, the other people whose names she mentioned.
And then we go through the list, we get to Julie Swetnick, who had the most outrageous allegations of anybody, almost on a weekend basis, she was claiming that these teenage boys were drugging drinks, punch at parties, and lining up in halls and literally, you know, waiting their turn to gang rape girls that had been drugged and that, you know, Kavanaugh was a part of it.
Then she does an NBC news interview and the affidavit that she had given with, in this case, Michael Avenatti, and also what she said in the interview, all of a sudden, well, no, not exactly what I'm saying.
And the story changes on some very important issues, key things.
And those also names that were mentioned never corroborated her story either.
One person saying, never even heard of her.
I have no idea who she is.
So it fell apart.
Now there is Chuck Grassley has sent a recommendation to the Department of Justice for a criminal investigation into what has gone on here.
Justice Kavanaugh was voted onto the bench.
I think the person that made the most articulate case was, well, too, Lindsey Graham was amazing in that hearing, number one.
And number two, Susan Collins of Maine.
She methodically, and we played the whole hour on this program, went through step by step by step how she reached her decision.
And I thought it was probably her finest moment in the U.S. Senate.
And good for her.
Now, when Avenatti came out at the time with Swetnik, it was guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty.
You know, that it's affirmed.
It's this.
Again, this is going back, you know, 36 years.
And now he has these charges brought against him.
My argument at the time, no due process, no presumption of innocence was provided Judge Kavanaugh.
None because of political expediency.
And now here we are.
I just wonder, I mean, I have no idea whatsoever.
I don't even have an opinion on any idea of whether these charges against Michael Avenati are true or not true.
I hope and pray if they're not true, that he is exonerated.
If it is true, I hope justice would be served.
I have nothing against Michael Avenati.
I do have a problem about those people that say I believe that know nothing.
You know, at some point, we have got to make a decision here.
And I think the decision is take any charge seriously.
That's what it should be, like the Republicans did in the Kavanaugh hearings.
Take it seriously, vet out the stories, and try to come to the truth.
And that goes for Avenati.
Nobody listening to this program now knows a fact about what really happened.
It's something that, obviously, they thought it was serious enough of a claim to go forward with the, you know, the suspicion of domestic felony, domestic violence charges, but we don't know.
And that's just fair.
But I wish, why didn't he afford Kavanaugh what he now, I'm sure, wants for himself.
Greg Jarrett, Fox News legal analyst, also author of the number one bestseller, The Russia Hoax.
Carrie Severino is with us, Chief Counsel, Policy Director, Judicial Crisis Network.
Greg, your thoughts.
Well, you were the very first person within a couple of hours of the Avenatti story breaking that said, you said this very clearly and repeatedly, he deserves the presumption of innocence and due process.
And you're to be commended for that.
And I think you really led the way for a lot of people.
The irony, of course, as you point out, is that Avenatti wanted to deprive Kavanaugh of those basic, fundamental, and important American principles of justice.
Now he wants to enjoy those presumptions of innocence and due process himself.
So the irony is lost on no one.
You know, anybody can make an accusation, but we have a process in America in which proof is required.
But, you know, Avenatti wanted to essentially ruin the life and career, fine reputation of Brett Kavanaugh without presentation of proof because he submitted an affidavit that we now know was faulty.
It was in some parts disavowed by his client, Julia Swetnick, when she gave an interview.
So it's correct that the Department of Justice should be investigating Avenatti and Swetnik as to whether or not they presented false material, false and misleading statements to Congress, which is, by the way, a very serious crime.
So I stand by your original statement that Avenatti is innocent until proven guilty.
Carrie, many of the people that came out immediately and said, I believe, whether it was Swetnik or whether it was Professor Ford, et cetera, this was before Professor Ford was known to anybody.
It had ever said a word to anybody.
It was only a letter that had been sent to Dianne Feinstein through another, I believe, state legislator at the time.
All of those people that said, I believe, not one have I heard say a single word about whether we should believe the woman that's making the allegations against Michael Avenatti.
Is it because it's not important to them?
Is it because the issue's not important to them?
Is it because there's no politics in play?
It was just like all the allegations that existed.
And again, these are recent allegations.
These aren't 36 years old.
Or the allegations against Keith Ellison or many on that Senate committee, the Senate Judiciary Committee, that love the Clintons and ignore all the issues with Bill Clinton and Juanita and Kathleen and Paula, etc.
It's interesting, isn't it, which people they choose to believe and then they just are silent on others.
Absolutely.
I mean, the silence is deafening.
And I think it's exactly right.
These are the same people who lined up to defend Bill Clinton, even in the face of proven misconduct.
And, you know, here they're not willing to stand by the faulty anti-due process principles they wanted to put on their political enemies.
They don't want to apply to everyone.
What we need here is exactly, as we've been talking about, a rule of law that applies to everyone.
That means innocent until proven guilty.
Whether I like your politics or dislike them, whether it's going to help or hurt my personal interests, we have to make sure we're being fair to all parties.
And like you, I don't know what the truth is in this.
I hope that we find out the truth, but we can't jump to the conclusions based on whether we like the person accused or think it would be politically convenient for that person to be found guilty or thought guilty.
Because people kept on saying, well, this isn't a court of law.
This is just the court of public opinion.
That doesn't change things.
Our American system is one where there's a fundamental value of understanding that innocence until proven guilty.
And that means when you're in a courtroom, but also in terms of how we speak in the court of public opinion.
So I think it's great that we're able to talk about this and say, let's reserve judgment and hopefully maybe set an example.
I'm hoping that some people on the left, seeing this contrast, I mean, I was struck when you were reading it, hearing his words of, well, I've never done this and I never would.
I've spent my career advocating for the rights of women.
That's almost word for word what Gret Kavanaugh said.
So if you're not going to be able to do that.
But let me make a prediction.
I'm telling you right now.
If you believe it here, believe it then.
And I guess he's upset.
I guess the RNC has asked for the arrest records in this particular case, and he claims he's innocent.
You know, I'll even take it a step further, Greg.
I hope no man would ever do this to any woman ever.
I would hope that would be the case, regardless of one's politics, but I can make a prediction, and I know with 100% certainty I'm right.
If the Democrats need to do this politically again, the ones that won't say anything now or didn't say anything about Clinton or Ellison, they'll be right back to where they were.
It's happened.
Look at the slander of Kennedy against Robert Bork.
Look at what Clarence Thomas went through.
Real quick, Greg.
Well, let me just say a couple of things.
As a California lawyer who grew up in Los Angeles and practiced there, I can affirm that they don't make an arrest and book somebody on a felony charge without probable cause, which means at least the detectives who made the arrest and booked him on that felony charge felt that there was evidence of, under the statute, significant visible injuries.
Let me get to that when we get back because there's one line in the TMZ report that if it turns out to be true, I think would be devastating to his case.
Greg Jarrett and Carrie Severino talking about Avenati, the double standard.
Why only believe if it's a charge against a Republican or judge, but not a Democrat?
The one line in TMZ that, you know, if it turned out to be true, Greg, legally, well, she hit me first.
That to me would be a devastating, devastatingly hard to defend in court, wouldn't it?
If that in fact is true, it would.
On the one hand, it's a self-serving statement by the accused that he's defending himself, but on the other hand, it's an admission, a confession that he hit her second.
You know, it's one thing to defend yourself against an individual, especially a woman who's hitting you and you might grab her arms or wrists and so forth, but these were reportedly injuries to the face of the alleged victim.
And so that will be a damning admission if, in fact, it's true that he hit her in the face.
And at some point, Carrie, I would assume, I mean, I guess others have applied for this as well on the media, but people are wanting the arrest records.
I assume with that might be some, you know, if there's any physical evidence that might be released or mugshots.
I don't know what they're looking for.
Yeah, definitely a possibility that that stuff's going to come out.
I mean, she hit me first is something I heard yesterday from my five-year-old.
So I'm hoping that that doesn't turn out to be an accurate excuse because it didn't work with me as a mom, and I don't think it would work in court.
But I think there's just so much more.
There's a lot more research that needs to be done before we can come to any conclusions on this is the challenge.
With no corroborating evidence and all of obviously a lot of politics for the rest of his life, his wife's life and his kids' lives, sadly, these charges against Justice Kavanaugh are out there and what he went through.
And that's the danger of somebody if they make an allegation and it's false or unprovable or no evidence whatsoever.
You know, people rush to judgment just because of maybe the noise that they hear on it and they don't have any objectivity.
The principles of due process, presumption of innocence are key.
All right.
Thank you both.
Carrie, thank you.
Greg, always great to have you, my friend.
800-941-Sean, toll-free telephone number.
All right, a lot of calls today.
We will get to the phones right after this as we continue.
At 25 now till the top of the hour.
All right, let's get some calls in here on a Friday.
What a busy newsweek.
We've got the judge's order, which I think is fascinating.
Not a First Amendment issue, Fifth Amendment issue, due process issue.
And there'll be more coming from the judge in the case about Jim Acosta.
Legally, it's just something that I'd love to follow.
Got the issues with Avenatti.
We've got, looks like mathematically now impossible.
Rick Scott will be the next senator from the great state of Florida.
And then you've got, of course, Stacey Abrams saying, I want to revote.
A revote?
You know, now Kemp is the governor-elect of Georgia.
And now that we have Gillum, he won't concede down in Florida.
And all the Democrats say, well, Donald Trump, what if he doesn't accept the results of the election?
When does that apply to Democrats?
We'll point to sore losers come in here.
And all the, in spite of all of the tricks and hiding and rules and laws that were broken and thumbing their nose at the Florida Constitution.
All right, back to our phones.
Let's say hi to Gary is in Connecticut.
Gary, hi, how are you?
Welcome to the Sean Hannity Show.
Happy Friday, sir.
Hello, hello.
Hey, good to talk to you.
I miss you, man.
Oh, thank you.
I'm glad you're back.
What's going on?
Well, I've just got to tell you, it took me nine hours to get home yesterday in the storm and listening to you the whole time.
I went through nine bags of Reese's turkey chocolate.
So that's how entertaining you are.
Is that how long it took you to get home in the snowstorm?
Yeah, I was just telling the guys at the back.
There were nine different routes to get home.
I ended up all the way up Route 9 over the Rip Bandwinkle Bridge just to get back down into Connecticut.
I know you've been there before.
No, listen, there's no worse place to drive.
I can't tell you how many times I've driven either Connecticut or New Jersey, you know, from when my kids were younger, these tennis tournaments that I came to hate, you know, twitching with each ball hit.
I just couldn't take it anymore.
And it's just horrible.
I mean, George Washington Bridge, getting into Connecticut, 95, it's just awful, all of it.
W is up to $9 in tolls.
I mean, the good thing if I have vinyl and sonos in the car just to listen to all my music or listening to you, I'd go nuts.
It'd be crazy.
But real quick, real quick, I just wanted to get to everything you're saying about Michael Avenatti.
I was reading a piece that County Executive Frank Del Campo wrote up about how this is daring.
What's going on now?
It's so daring to the women's movement.
I mean, if he doesn't want to box, don't get into the ring.
I mean, he has to see this coming.
And Justice Kavanaugh, I mean, look what that family went through.
I mean, I was just talking to telling the guys the back.
I mean, it is what it is.
That family went through so much.
And how about all the women out there that are truthful about things that have happened to them that aren't going to come forward now because of this because of a decision like this, what they saw with Kavanaugh with the false accusations come?
There's about nine more false accusations that came through.
You know, there are some people that are actually mad at me yesterday because I'm consistent.
And he goes, he deserves.
I'm like, you know what?
I just don't have that in me.
What I mean don't have in me, I can't wish ill on anybody like that.
There's a karma to that to me.
And if he's innocent, I want him to be able to show his innocence in this.
If he's not, then he will pay the price if in fact he did this.
But to say in any way like they did to Kavanaugh that I know, that I believe, that I have a feeling, it just isn't fair.
There is no better system I can think of than presumption of innocence.
And because we have a system of justice, it's not perfect.
We've screwed up many, many times.
But, you know, we got to get these things right.
And I think if we just stand back, time will tell what happens.
But he doesn't hide his views.
He doesn't manipulate his views.
I think the Democratic Party, they ran a campaign this midterm of just not telling anybody anything.
And healthcare, that's all they would say, healthcare.
They wouldn't talk about the borders, wouldn't talk about anything except they hate Donald Trump and they tried to get their base motivated because they didn't like Trump.
But a guy like Bernie Sanders is upfront about what he believes and he believes it sincerely.
Now, he's sincerely wrong, but at least he's straightforward.
I can take that much more than the people that usually end up in Washington.
And frankly, too many of them on both sides that just are just so afraid to stand up for what they believe in.
Just say it.
Whatever you believe, say it.
And I would say Avenatti is kind of like Bernie Sanders.
He says what he believes.
He fights.
And I don't blame people for fighting even when they're wrong and on the other side.
I can't fault them for that.
As long as it's real.
You know, look at all the Republicans that the Senate, for example, that they wanted, oh, we vote to repeal Obamacare in 2015.
And seven of them changed their minds when it would have worked in 2017.
I look at that and I'm like, no wonder people have such a low opinion of politicians.
They're full of it.
They care more about themselves, their power.
On the criminal justice system, I'll tell you what scares me.
If you remember in the O.J. Simpson case, there's a guy by the name of Barry Scheck.
Remember him?
He's now started the Innocence Project.
And what he's been able to do is frankly phenomenal.
And we've always got to be careful.
I've always been a very strong death penalty advocate, but there are too many cases with new forensic evidence techniques that they have that are absolutely mind-blowing that they've been able to prove the innocence of people that have been in jail for crimes that they never committed for decades.
Some even having been on death row.
It makes one pause.
We've got to pause and say if one person is dying because they got it wrong, and there's so many of them.
So we've got to be careful with all of this.
All right, but I got to move back to our phones here.
Let's say hi to Phil in New York.
Hey, Phil, how you doing?
The all new AM710, W-O-R, The Talk of New York.
How are you?
Fine.
Happy Thanksgiving, Sean.
How are you?
Happy Thanksgiving, my friend.
How are you?
Good, thanks.
Yeah, I just, you know, wanted to say about, you know, this Avenatti thing.
As much as we can't stand what he did, as much as we may hate what he did, you definitely have to presume everybody's innocent until they're proven guilty.
Absolutely.
Yeah, it's not complicated, is it?
No.
And it happens all the time the other way, doesn't it?
Richard Jewell, you know, Trayvon Martin, Cambridge Police, Duke La Crosse, UVA, Ferguson, Baltimore.
I mean, high-profile cases.
And you know, this other sad part of it is people get their expectations up.
When they're told in Baltimore that six cops are going to be found guilty because they're guilty, and everyone declares them guilty.
And all of a sudden, when the evidence is presented, comes back very differently than what they were told by so-called leaders in the community and the politicians.
Then, uh-oh, those expectations were not met.
And then they think the system is rigged and fixed, but it really was just a system based on evidence in most cases.
It becomes dangerous at that point.
Very dangerous.
Yeah.
All right, my friend, have a great Thanksgiving.
You're the best.
800-941-Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
Dave is in Pittsburgh, P.A. Dave.
How are you?
Welcome to the show.
Glad you called, sir.
I'm fine, Sean.
I'm an attorney.
As far as this judge who ordered on the side of CNN that says Acosta has to be allowed into the White House, the Constitution forbids that.
We have the separation of powers required by the Constitution of executive, legislature, judicial.
The judge, a court, does not have power to tell the president what to do.
There's no jurisdiction.
I mean, if you carry it to the extreme, what if the judge says Trump must fire a missile at Russia?
Just tells you he has to do it.
No, if the judge has such power, the judge is acting as if he's president.
There's no jurisdiction.
I would suggest that Trump just flatly ignore that.
Well, I mean, the one thing the judge was clear on, they don't have to take his questions.
There's no obligation to take their questions.
Kelly did not, the judge in this case, determine if the First Amendment was violated.
I don't think in any way, shape, or form.
He used more of a due process argument and said that, you know, they would likely succeed in their argument of their Fifth Amendment rights to due process rather than a First Amendment issue.
And he only made that decision because of a 1977 case, a court ruling that said journalists must at least be given notice and a chance to rebut the government's decision to revoke their credentials.
And the judge Kelly in this case said the government couldn't even tell him who made the decision to revoke the pass.
And I do think then that basically the judge is also signaling to the White House that if they set up process and standards that must be adhered to for people to keep that pass, that then they would have been notified properly prior to ever stepping foot on the grounds and how they conduct themselves in the press room.
By the way, it's not about hard questions.
That was never the issue because the president answered not one, but two questions.
And Acosta wanted the debate.
It wasn't even a question, really, but the president said, well, I just, we have a fundamental disagreement.
We disagree on your characterization of the migrant issue and invasion issue.
And that was not enough for him.
And then how many times does a president have to say when other press people are waiting their turn patiently, how many times does a president have to say enough, enough, enough, enough, enough to say that that type of behavior is rude and disruptive and it happens to be a consistent style of Acostas?
I think if they set up those standards, I think it would work against them in time.
Let's say hi to Mia is in Florida.
Mia, oh, the recount state of Florida.
How are you?
What's going on?
Hey, well, a friend of mine is a union attorney.
And I called him because I'm concerned if like, you know, the results are going to change.
And he says, don't worry about it.
The results are going to stay what they are.
It's just that the unions are beside themselves.
And this is basically a test run for 2020.
And I'm like, well, I mean, they're beside themselves, Sean.
They just don't know what to do with themselves.
They can't handle Trump.
Trump is just way too much for them.
And I've been analyzing something.
You know, last year was 100 years of the Red Revolution.
And here we are.
You know, I mean, the left is the left.
And I don't understand why.
I mean, you and Rush and everything, you know, we say the left, the left, the left are socialists.
The left have communist thoughts and the story.
I mean, and they're just trying.
This is why elections matter.
This is what, you know, I keep reminding people is at stake.
Look, for the president to pick up these sextra Senate seats, as he did, and it's only happened three times in 100 years, was massive for the Republicans and for him.
Because as Lindsey Grammitt said, all right, you don't want to legislate in the House?
That's fine because we'll go back to Hillary's email and we'll actually do it right this time.
If they do it right this time and we have equal justice and application of our laws, she's in deep trouble.
She'd be indicted and obstruction of justice.
I say, you know, game on.
Let's get to this.
I want that fight.
Anyway, appreciate the call.
I'm sure they'll find things, areas of agreement someplace, somehow, somewhere.
All right, back to our busy telephones.
Then we'll get our news roundup information overload in as so much to get to today.
I mean, we really, you know, we'll go over this, a cost issue a little bit with them and all the other news today.
Harold is in Raleigh.
Harold, hi.
How are you?
Glad you called.
Thank you for taking my call.
I'm a retired policeman, and I happen to be an African-American male.
I find it an insult, this immigration nonsense, it's an insult to my ancestors who were brought here in chains and fought tooth and nail to become U.S. citizens.
For people to waltz across the border and demand citizenship, it's an insult.
It's also an insult to the people who are waiting online, trying to do it the right way, to come to this country.
When I saw that young lady, Miss Harris, make that remark about the Klan and ICE, I said to myself, really, you're comparing law enforcement to the KKK.
It's all about the same thing.
It was pretty.
First of all, thank you for what you do because policemen protect and serve the communities they live in.
And thanks for your hard work.
The thing that was so insulting about it is how many of these guys have died?
How many of these guys have been injured, doing a really hard job at probably not the greatest pay or comparable pay that they get in the private sector, but they do it because they protect and serve their community like you do.
I mean, and then she's saying, well, the perception between the KKK and ICE, it was pretty outrageous.
Of course, nobody cares in the media besides, you know, me and you and people in law enforcement.
So it's sad.
Handy, I'm willing to bet if these politicians like Waters and Spartacus had to live next to illegal immigrants, they would have a different attitude about illegal immigration.
There was a young man just killed in Georgia, 77 years old, chopped up and murdered by an illegal immigrant, a Mexican, in the state of Georgia, where Stacey Abrams was pushing open borders, sanctuary cities.
It's happening far too much.
Shouldn't happen once.
Kate Steining was an atrocity.
It's happening more than Fox is the only news channel that talks about it.
News roundup, information overload as we now wrap up the week.
We'll debate all the issues of the week.
Kayleigh McEnany, Jeff Lord will join us.
A lot of your calls also coming up.
Coming up next, our final news roundup, an information overload hour.
We want total freedom of the press.
That's very important to me.
It's more important to me than anybody would believe.
But you have to act with respect.
You're in the White House.
And when I see the way some of my people get treated at press conferences, it's terrible.
So we're setting up a certain standard, which is what the court is requesting.
And always freedom of the press, always First Amendment, but that's the way it is.
The president's tone towards the term.
Thanks.
The president's tone towards the press obviously is not helpful at times.
And I think that that's plain to see.
There are some fears up on Capitol Hill, and we understand some in the White House that a Democratic wave is coming and can sweep the Republicans out of power in the House.
And that could potentially lead to impeachment proceedings that the Democrats could bring forward.
What is the President's thinking on that?
What is your thinking on that?
Do you understand how the wall could be different than border security, sir?
Border security could be a very important thing.
No, actually, I don't know.
It could mean agents.
It could mean more fencing.
It doesn't necessarily mean a physical.
And that's part of the negotiation that we expect Congress to have.
I understand Democrats are saying that they may not be in favor of this kind of deal.
But they say thanks, but no thanks for a wall.
Jim, I'm not negotiating with you.
I'm going to let Congress take care of that.
What we're witnessing right now is just this erosion of our freedoms in terms of covering the president of the United States.
I think that there are moments when this president is just really sensitive to criticism and he lashes out in this fashion.
That is just a strange and unprecedented thing to do to me, throwing rolls and paper towels at people.
The last three news conferences, Wolf, all of the questions to the American news media have been handled by conservative press.
And I think, Wolf, there's no other way to describe it but the fix is in.
Statute of Liberty has always been hope to the world for people to set people to this country.
Jim, and they're not always going to speak.
Jimmy is going to be highly skilled.
They're not always going to be a pleasure.
Jim, I appreciate your speech.
I think we saw the president's true colors today, and I'm not sure they were red, white, and blue.
If I may ask another question.
Mr. President, if I may ask one other question, are you worried?
That's enough.
That's enough.
Mr. President, I was going to ask one of the other folks.
That's enough.
Pardon me, ma'am.
Mr. President.
That's enough.
Mr. President, one of the time.
Put down the mic.
Mr. President, are you worried about indictments coming down in this investigation?
Mr. President.
I'll tell you what, CNN should be ashamed of itself having you working for them.
You are a rude, terrible person.
You shouldn't be working for CNN.
And obviously, this is the moment that everybody is waiting for on Inauguration Day when the President and the First Lady step out of their limo and walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.
You know, I feel like I should pitch myself right now, Wolf.
I can't believe I have this vantage point of history in the making.
You're literally, what, about 15, 20 feet away from the president?
I'm probably a good, I would say, 50 feet away from the president right now, Wolf.
Very, very close.
All right, there you have it.
News Roundup Information Overload Hour, 800-941-Sean, toll-free telephone number if you want to be a part of the program.
What's amazing is in this judge's ruling, just temporarily restoring Jim Acosta's press credential.
When you get into the heart of the ruling, and I think this is a temporary injunction, reinstating the press pass.
But when you look at what the court is saying, the court is making clear, there is the argument that was being made, this is a First Amendment right to access the White House.
And what the judge is arguing is that there was no real standards or rules or process that would ensure fair and orderly press conferences in the future and that there must be decorum at the White House.
And anyway, the White House has been arguing they have the right to reject Acosta's access because of how he treats the president, treated the president at the press conference, but it wasn't the first time you just heard that montage.
He loved when Obama was getting his second inauguration.
Just couldn't be happier and the double standard that exists there.
But the judge found that the harm in sustaining a violation of due process outweighs the government's interest in orderly and respectful press conferences.
And that in that sense, that's what this judge is saying.
And the judge will weigh in further.
One other thing that you really have to take note of, judge is clear that the president, his spokespeople, are not obligated to let him ask questions.
I mean, there's many ways that this can come down.
But as he began to offer his view on components of what CNN was requesting, he said, while I might not agree with the underlying case law, meaning a First Amendment case, I read the case closely.
And whether it's what I agree with, that's a different story.
But it's the precedent that he was relying on to make his decision.
And, you know, that's basically what it comes down to.
Anyway, here to go through this and so much more.
We have a spokesperson for the RNC, Kaylee McEnany, is back with us.
Jeff Lord, he's also with us.
Interesting that he had worked for fake news CNN.
So what is your reaction to the judge today?
Well, I'm going for First Amendment price, but no one has a First Amendment right to be in the White House.
I mean, that's certainly.
It's absurd.
Yeah.
And by the way, I mean, if they're going to set up standards, they don't have to have standards that historically existed.
They're going to have standards that say you're in the old executive office building and no longer in the White House at all.
I mean, and everybody gets treated the same, right?
That's right.
And remember that that press room that we see all the time, that was created by Richard Nixon.
It didn't used to exist.
That was Franklin Roosevelt's swimming pool, which is still there.
It's still there.
The pool is still in there.
Yeah.
That's pretty funny, and a lot of people don't know.
They lounged around in the lobby, in the White House West Wing lobby.
Right.
Maybe they'll get put back there.
What is your take on this?
The judge, Timothy Kelly.
It's interesting because he used the Fifth Amendment claim as the ruling for his basis, saying the White House needs to provide due process required to legally revoke the pass and literally leaving open the possibility they could revoke it again if they provide that due process.
Yeah, Sean, that's exactly right.
It's a big note that the focus was the Fifth Amendment.
It was due process.
It was giving enough notice to Jim Acosta in advance that his pass would be taken away on not finding out when he arrived for a hit with CNN.
So it leaves open the door, a big open door for, if done appropriately, if done with enough time, perhaps.
In fact, you could take away Jim Acosta's press pass.
And left out of all of this is the fact that he literally slapped down the arm of a White House intern, a young girl dedicating her time to the White House for free without pay, has her arm slapped down by Jim Acosta.
I'm going to be honest, I didn't see a slap.
I saw the young intern try to grab the microphone and he pulled it back.
And, you know, he was like, I'm not giving up this microphone.
But how many times does the president of the United States have to say enough, enough, enough, enough?
And, you know, there was an interesting article that I saw that there are a lot of his fellow colleagues out there.
This was on the Daily Wire today.
This isn't the Jim Blanking Acosta show.
And some of his fellow journalists, White House correspondents, they're kind of pissed off because he hogs all the time.
He doesn't stay within the limit of one question each.
He wants five.
He wants to debate the president.
And he's making it about himself.
Oh, this is entirely about Jim Acosta.
There's no denying that.
It's all about Dimakasa.
It's not about getting questions in, getting real facts out.
He takes the place of other journalists who aren't welcomed in because this is about him.
It's about him taking the microphone, him getting the star power.
That's clear.
And you don't have a right to be rude like that, to take the center of attention.
There are only 44 spots in that White House press briefing room.
And for Jim Acosta to act as if he has a First Amendment right to one of them is just fallacious.
What do you think?
I mean, where does this go from here?
I mean, I would imagine that this is a huge gaping hole that the Judge Kelly in this case is leaving open.
And as much as they will set up some type of process, there will be established rules in terms of people, White House correspondents going forward.
The White House has the right to choose or not choose anybody.
That was made clear.
And one wonders if, for example, if they decided to put the swimming pool back and move the press office to, I don't know, anywhere that they feel like moving it in some other building, but not the White House.
I don't see how that challenge loses.
I mean, they can challenge it, but I don't think that would stand as long as due process is afforded everybody in the media.
Well, that's absolutely right.
You know, where they would put them is there's a room, it's called room 450 over in the fourth floor of the old executive office building.
And from time to time, presidents have held press conferences there.
They'd stick them right there.
That's where they could do it and get them out of the White House altogether.
They have no constitutional right to be in the White House.
That's just fact.
I mean, this is a relatively recent development as things go.
So absolutely, they could be tossed out of there.
And they would scream bloody murder for sure.
You know, it's interesting because the media takes no responsibility at all in all of this.
I'm talking about left-wing media.
I mean, there's a great piece by Cheryl Atkinson, who used to work at CBS, and it's called 60 Media Mistakes in the Trump Era, the Definitive List.
I mean, these errors are just, they just jump off the page at you.
You know, I'm not particularly fond of the left-wing media, those that say that they're media or journalists when they're anything but their advocates, and they just claim to be something that they're not.
That's exactly right.
They ignore the dossier.
They ignore Benghazi.
They ignore any major scandal that affects someone in the Democratic Party because it does not fit into their left-wing agenda.
And I mean, just compare the New York Times on Tuesday talking about this GOP recount and saying this is cold political calculation and alleging fraud.
They said that the president and the Republicans, they're stoking tensions over race by talking about fraud in Florida, which we now have evidence of, versus how they treat Stacey Abrams in Georgia when she's considering bringing a lawsuit alleging fraud and having an entirely new vote in Georgia.
The New York Times lends all the credence in the world to that while ignoring and marginalizing Republican concerns.
I mean, it's right there on their pages, the bias, which is why they have the lowest approval rating in Gallup recorded history because the American people recognize the bias.
What is your thought on where we are?
DeSantis now is declared the governor.
And now we have the same thing.
Kemp won the race in Georgia.
Mathematically, it is impossible now for Bill Nelson to be reelected.
Rick Scott is the new senator from the state of Florida.
All of these races, and none of these Democrats want to concede.
And such a big deal was made over, well, if Trump loses in 2016, he's going to create chaos.
He won't accept the results.
He'll refer to them as illegitimate.
And it's exactly what the Democrats do.
It's all about power for them.
I mean, that is the sole reason why they do all this.
It is all about power.
And one other thing, Sean, I want to say here about CNN.
They stand up for themselves and say it's all about the First Amendment.
They do not stand up when people come after you or Laura or Rush or when Lou Dobbs himself was at CNN.
They let media matters go after them.
They don't stand up against these people.
And that's a serious problem here.
I mean, the hypocrisy is just mind-boggling.
And until they do that, they're not going to have any credibility on this issue.
All right.
We'll pick that up on the other side.
We'll continue more with Kaylee McEnany is with us.
And also Jeff Lord, 800-941-Sean, toll-free telephone number.
You want to be a part of the program.
And as we continue with Kaylee McEnany, RNC spokesperson, by the way, author of the new American Revolution, The Making of a Populist Movement, Jeff Lord, when his book came out, What America Needs, The Case for Trump, when did that come out?
What month was that before the election?
It came out in January of 2016.
Amazing.
November of 2015.
Way ahead of the curve.
All right.
So if I am a talk show host who sometimes does straight news, and I can produce hours of coverage of straight news only on this program on TV.
And I also do strong opinion.
I can produce hours of that coverage.
And I also just have fun segments, talk to callers, have debates, whatever it happens to be.
I would argue I'm like a whole newspaper being a talk show host.
Different kind of journalism, but journalism.
They say they're journalists, but they're not.
The inherent dishonesty's never been this bad, Kaylee.
Absolutely.
Sean, you know, you're right to suggest that their opinion flows into their reporting.
There's no line between.
And there's also no line between the Democratic Party and the mainstream media.
They are one and the same.
It is why the media, 96% of donations went to Hillary.
And what makes what they do so wrong is that they disguise fair and balanced reporting as they put their opinion in a disguise of fair and balanced reporting, like ABC, NBC last night refusing to report that DeSantis had won the governorship.
UFCBS's Dan Rather and MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, all in the camp of Stacey Abrams, her campaign manager, admitted it on the airwaves.
And the list goes on and on.
This is opinion reporting disguised as journalism, plain and simple.
Jeff, last word.
That's exactly right.
That's exactly right.
That whole dust up with Jim Acosta began not because he said, Mr. President, you've defined invasion this way.
Why?
He didn't say that.
What he stood up and said, Mr. President, you're wrong with your definition.
He was not wrong with his definition.
And then proceeded to give his opinion and get into a debate.
That's the difference.
Sean, in a sense, he wants to.
It wouldn't be no different than me doing that to Obama.
That's right.
That's absolutely correct.
Think about that.
That's why it's out of place in that job.
You know, I always said, and I got to run here, guys.
I always said when Obama was president, I never got an interview, and I said, I really don't even want one because I'm in an untenable position.
You have to respect that office, the office of the presidency.
Whoever's president, they're the president of the country.
All right.
But so if I'm going to do a 15-minute interview, they're going to make it 15 minutes and you're out the door.
I'll ask three questions and that's it.
And if I appear interruptive, boy, my head is going to be chopped off by the liberal media.
So it just, it wouldn't work, to be very blunt.
It wouldn't have been a good situation.
Yeah, I want to interview my guy Hannity.
You know, he actually said we could have a beer one day and I offered to pay, but he never took me up on it.
I don't know why.
All right.
Thank you, Kaylee.
Good to hear from you.
Jeff Lord, thank you.
Happy Thanksgiving.
If we don't talk in the interim, 800-941-Sean, our number, quick break, write back.
Your calls right after this.
All right, glad you're with us.
25 now till the top of the hour.
It's Friday, right?
Wow, been a rough week with recounts, recounts, no concessions, fighting battles.
It's just the beginning.
Buckle up, take a deep breath.
Only three times in 100 years did a president in a midterm election pick up seats in the Senate.
That's going to be huge.
And yeah, Governor Scott's going to be the next senator.
We know that Ron DeSantis is now the next governor, and Kemp is now the next governor of Georgia.
Yeah, there'll be fights and battles going on, but at the end of the day, I don't see any way out unless a judge just basically wants to go in and steal it on one person's behalf.
And I can't see the Supreme Court ever allowing that to happen.
All right, let's go to, you know, one of the things that this president has done is redefined how presidents can communicate with the American people.
You know, think back, the first presidential televised debate was between Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy.
John F. Kennedy had makeup on, tan, didn't sweat, looked healthy.
Richard Nixon on TV didn't want to put makeup on, thought it would be a bad idea, wanted to be tougher than that.
Problem is, you don't put makeup on on TV.
And believe it, they have about 30 seconds that I use a day to powder my face because I can't stand sitting there.
And anyway, so they throw this goop on your face, just powder, and I race out to the set and I literally give them 30, 35 seconds that I'm out.
And anyway, so it made a difference.
Those that watched the debate on TV thought that Kennedy won.
Those that watched, those that listened on the radio thought Nixon had won.
Phenomenon.
By the way, that a notoriously close election.
Yeah, shenanigans in Chicago at the time.
But this president has taken social media where he, I think it's now well over 150 million people between Twitter and Instagram and Facebook.
I don't know the exact number.
And he can communicate.
One tweet now is an instant news story.
And literally, newsrooms are glued to it all day long.
What's he going to say in the morning?
What's he going to say at night?
What's he going to say during the day?
Remember Cofefe and that whole big controversy?
Do you remember the Iranian sanction controversy?
Social media goes nuts.
The news people go nuts.
Listen.
Words that will live in history.
Cofefe.
Despite the constant negative press, cofefe.
He wrote the word coffee.
Cofefe.
A little fun with cofefe.
Cofefe.
Cofefe.
And now, well, I was going to say, coffee.
I like cofefe.
The bizarre tweet last night, cofefefe.
Why is it important?
Everyone was talking about it.
A lot of confusion about it.
What did the president mean?
Let's talk about how serious this is.
What does it mean?
I don't know how to pronounce cofefe.
I went coffee.
Cocofefe.
And that's it.
Cofefe thing is dumb.
The dust off over coffee.
Who can figure out the true meaning of confeve?
C-O-V-F-E-F-E.
Unless you have anything to add to Cofefe.
Because apparently it speaks for itself.
Coffefe.
I need a hot cup of cofefe, please.
So I have to ask you: is it cofefe or coffee?
Cofif, cofefe.
None of us really know how to say this.
This is coffee.
Coffee.
You say cofefe, cofefe.
Coffefe.
50% of the world's population went to cofefe.
No making an ice cofefe.
Say this.
This was a total head scratcher.
Criticized several times Barack Obama and said, You just wait.
He's going to start a war with Iran if he feels like he's on the political ropes.
And so that's in his head.
With any previous president, if you'd woken up to this all-caps tweet threatening war with Iran, you'd think he probably belongs in a padded cell.
But with Trump, this is kind of business as normal.
Rest had just dominated the conversation for the whole week, and he was hurting.
So let's distract with a new topic.
And in this case, it's Iran.
Let's find a new foil that maybe all of us will focus on, and we'll forget that there was a summit in health thinking last week.
But this strengthens them for Rouhani, for the foreign minister.
This makes them look tough.
People are rallying around them.
So this is actually strengthening the regime.
I mean, it is a classic move by President Trump to try to distract.
And we've seen this time and time again.
When things aren't going well, you lob a Molotov cocktail in one corner of the room and everyone runs over there.
It's amazing how transformational this is with the president tweeting.
And it's just a new world.
He's got direct contact now and an ability to bypass the mainstream media anytime he wants.
He can make news, and he does often.
So we were in Cape Girardo the Monday before the Tuesday election, and I met a woman.
Her name is Tricia Hope, and it's amazing.
She just writes this book, and it's just the tweets of the president, President Donald J. Trump's historic collection of tweets, volume one.
And what it is, is a collection of every tweet the president made from January 20th, 2017 to January 19th, 2018.
That's volume one.
Volume two picks up where volume one left off, and there's going to be a volume every year for eight years.
But I'm telling you, it's, of course, we're assuming re-election, which I believe could happen.
Anyway, we met Tricia, and of course, Linda falls in love with her.
Boss, boss, boss, we got to put Trisha on.
Boss, boss.
Did you not say that?
And I was right.
She's fantastic.
Now, you live in Houston, but did you drive to Cape Girardo to go to that rally?
We did.
We drove to Cape Girardeau.
We drove to every location that we went to.
And we started in West Virginia, went to Montana.
We went to 11 rallies in a matter of about a month and a half.
Now, did you ever get the book to the president?
No, I did send him a box of books back in April, but I haven't heard back.
I mean, he is a little busy, so I love the country at all.
So I'm hoping one day they actually end up in his hand.
And we wrote the book as really a tribute and appreciation to him speaking to us because we end up having the media telling us what he's saying, and we don't need to do that.
We can just read what he's saying.
And I wanted to collect it and put it together in a collectible way for everybody to have.
The great phenomenon of the Trump rallies is no other politician.
Now, Obama had big crowds.
There's no doubt about it.
He didn't sustain them the way Donald Trump does or do them anywhere near the number that Donald Trump does.
And wherever he is, wherever he goes, the crowds, it's packed to whatever the capacity is.
If I had to guess in Cape Girardeau, what, 8,010,000 somewhere in there?
And how long did you stay out in the pouring rain before you got in?
We stood out there for eight hours, but there were people who stood out there overnight.
And we've done that many times.
We did not do that in Cape Girardo.
But it was pouring, but when I finally pulled up, and I was lucky, I had a pass to get in because I had an interview with the president.
See, I was treated like a spoiled brat news media person.
But literally, so I pulled up, and I see all these people online.
And when I pulled up, it was pouring rain.
Were you out in that pouring rain?
Yes, I was.
I was out in the pouring rain, and I had my book for you underneath my shirt and everything else trying to get out of the way.
Oh, my God.
And no, you were very kind, and it was really nice to meet you.
And now, how did the book, how's the book doing?
It's doing fantastic.
We've sold over 4,000 copies, which, you know, we're just self-published and we traveled all over the country doing this.
We don't sell on Amazon.
We just sell on our website, just the tweets.
Why don't you sell them on Amazon?
That wouldn't be a bad idea.
Well, I'll tell you, I'm kind of a principled person, and Amazon, they're abusive to the taxpayer.
And I just have made the decision not to do that right now.
And I just feel like.
Well, we'll put it up on our website for the weekend.
How's that?
And if people don't want to get right, Linda, we can do that.
We can do anything for Tricia.
By the way, so I was really honored to meet you.
I think it was my brother-in-law that handed me the book.
I took it.
He is fantastic, and so is Linda.
Thank you to both of them.
Right.
So my brother-in-law hands me the book, and he goes, and he points to you, and I'm pointing to you.
And I was trying to run around and say hi to the crowd and meet people.
And I really, I was shocked at the reaction I got being there, to be very frank.
I'm like, okay.
I'm just a TV guy.
I certainly do.
Well, it was fun.
And we did the show and it was very nice.
Then I got a chance to finally walk over and meet you.
And, well, I just want to say congratulations.
And when you met Linda, she talks funny, right?
Well, I was afraid she was going to say I talk funny.
I did not.
Probably.
Linda talks funny.
Hey, say Singapore.
Singapore.
Singapore.
You hear that?
How about we say Trisha's website, just thetweets.com?
Just the tweets.
Say coffee.
Coffee.
Coffee.
Say New York.
New York.
You don't do it the right way.
New York.
Say New York.
New York.
Say talk radio.
Talk radio.
Talk radio.
There we go.
All right.
So, all right.
Trisha's website.
Just thetweets.com.
You better be careful.
You know, Trump's a business guy.
He's going to want some residuals on this.
Well, I would love, love, love to have that conversation with them.
I absolutely wouldn't.
I would welcome it.
You know what?
It's, I wonder now.
That's a great copyright question.
I'm sure nothing would ever happen, though.
Congratulations.
Just thetweets.com.
We'll put it up on Hannity.com if you forget, and we'll leave it up there for the weekend.
Trisha, lovely meeting you.
God bless you.
I had a really good time.
The people of Cape Gerardo, you're from Houston.
They're wonderful.
And thank you so much for being with us.
All right.
That's going to wrap up what has been a busy, crazy, fun week, but still a lot of news.
We got to get this all resolved as it relates to Florida.
I hope you have a great weekend.
Thanksgiving next week.
Where did the time go?
Have a great weekend.
We'll see you back here on Monday.
As always, thank you for being with us.
You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
We got you.
I'm Carol Markowitz, and I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
We've been around the block in media and we're doing things differently.
Normally is about real conversations.
Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
Join us every Tuesday and Thursday, normally, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
