John Solomon, Editor in Chief of Just the News, author of FALLOUT: Nuclear Bribes, Russian Spies, and the Washington Lies That Enriched The Clinton and Biden Dynasties, and Gregg Jarrett, Host of the New Podcast The Brief, author of The Russia Hoax and Witch Hunt, and a Fox News legal analyst discuss the death of RBG, the pending Durham indictments and the news out of Senator Ron Johnson’s office.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.
The most radical mainstream party candidacy ever in the history of this country.
That would be Joe Biden, Bolshevik Bernie, the Bernie Biden Manifesto.
That would be AOC.
Oh, she had a lot to say this weekend.
Kamala Harris to the left of Bernie in the U.S. Senate.
Then Beto Bozo.
Think of these positions that they are publicly taking.
Trillions of dollars in new tax hikes.
Open borders.
United Sanctuary States of America.
Think of, listen to what they're saying they're going to do.
Or, you know, any one of these issues.
Eliminate fossil fuels within 15 years.
My plan goes further than the new Green Deal.
Trillions of dollars being pledged to that.
We already know Biden's appeasement policies on foreign policy.
We know with, you know, all the way through January through late March, he's saying the travel ban was hysterical, xenophobia, and fear-mongering.
Wrong on it.
Didn't even want to take out bin Laden.
Never mind, you know, Soleimani and Baghdadian associates, et cetera, et cetera.
Defeating the caliphate in Syria.
That was all Trump.
Look, let me tell you what is now happening because you need to understand, and the mob is never going to tell you the truth.
This history, this pattern of the Democrat, they're now basically, they're openly saying, fine, do what we demand or we'll stack the Supreme Court the minute we get power or control of the U.S. Senate.
Wow.
Think of that threat.
You either give us what we want or we will end the filibuster completely.
Now, I'll go through the history of this in a second.
We'll even go as far as they're talking about impeaching the president, impeaching the Attorney General of the United States.
Nancy Pelosi going as far as to say, we have arrows in our quiver to stall or prevent the Senate from acting on filling a Ginsburg seat.
Well, I hate to break it to all of them.
If you actually care about history, in election years, it's happened 29 times where a vacancy, there's been a vacancy in a presidential election year, 29 times.
It's actually a great piece on FoxNews.com.
And Ted Cruz, I think, either wrote it or they were quoting him, maybe from this week when he was on with George Stefanabos, because he was phenomenal.
If you talk about president, look at precedent.
It's happened 29 times a vacancy during a presidential election year.
And he said presidents have made nominations all 29 times.
That's what presidents do.
We still have a Constitution.
Constitution, Article 2, Section 2 could not be any more clear.
He, the president, shall have the power by and with the advice and consent of the Senate to make treaties provide two-thirds of the senators present concur, which, by the way, Obama Biden didn't care or live by.
He shall nominate and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and counsels, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States.
Donald Trump's already been elected.
He is the president.
29 times there's been a vacancy in a presidential election year, and guess what?
29 times presidents have made nominations, all 29 times, which is what presidents do.
If there is a vacancy, they make a nomination.
Now, the Senate has acted very interestingly in these 29 examples.
Now, for example, there's a big difference in the Senate.
in terms of whether the Senate is the same party as the president or a different party than the president.
When the Senate is of the same party as the president, the vacancy occurs at the election year.
And of those 29 times, 19 of them, it was the same party.
The same person, in other words, one party in the White House, same party in the Senate.
Now, 19 times they made Supreme Court appointments under that scenario.
17 of the 19 were confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
That's if the parties are the same.
They generally, 17 out of 19 times, confirm the nominee.
When the parties are different, which has happened 10 times, and by the way, Merrick Garland was one of them.
Of the 10 times, the Senate has confirmed only two of the 10.
And Ted rightly points out there's a reason for this.
It's not just simply your party or my party.
The reason is that it is a question of checks and balances.
And Obama used to love to remind all of us, didn't he, that elections have consequences.
They can come along, but they got to sit in the back.
I remember comments like that.
So if, again, if precedence matters.
Now, you know, to hear the outright threats, we have arrows in our quiver to stall or prevent the Senate.
Well, first of all, Nancy, no, you don't.
That will not be your decision.
Now, we are ready.
Two senators, one from Alaska, Lisa Murkowski, one from the great state of Maine, Susan Collins, have said they don't want to vote until after the election.
I disagree.
I couldn't be more in disagreement with them.
He is the president.
It is his constitutional duty to do so.
And I'll tell you, another good reason for this is I'm looking at the comments and the threats of Democrats, and it's getting downright scary what they are saying that they will do if, in fact, there is an election and they don't get what they want.
I mean, it's kind of interesting to watch even the former comment of, what, their former senator from New York.
You know, I would never concede the election, Hillary's saying.
I'm like, huh?
Are you kidding?
Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances, Hillary said, because I think this is going to drag out.
And eventually I do believe that he will win if we don't give an inch.
Wow.
Republicans are going to try and mess up absentee balloting so they can get a potentially narrow lead.
None of that is true.
You know, July 2nd, Forbes has an article outlining the Biden campaign now has hired over 600 lawyers.
Biden himself has said, we put together 600 lawyers and a team of volunteers that will go into every single state and try and figure out whether chicanery is likely to take place.
We will fight every effort to exploit, and he goes on from there.
It's pretty scary stuff.
In other words, their stated agenda, their stated promises, they're all saying.
Now, let me give you a brief history of all of this, that the mob, the media, never will.
Chuck Schumer, now having apparently told his colleagues, nothing is off the table.
Let me interpret that for you.
We will stack the Supreme Court with, oh, we'll maybe make it 11 justices or 13 justices.
Why not go for an even 20?
Who knows if nothing is off the table, it's a threat.
He's threatening to end the filibuster.
They're talking about even impeaching the president or impeaching the attorney general.
Yet, you know, here we go again.
Now, if you want the real procedural norms, it's the Democrats that have the history of breaking procedural norms on judges.
And packing the court would be their most radical decision to date, but they're signaling they'll go there.
Remember, it all started.
1987 was the year.
You know, Bork, Robert Bork, qualified the most qualified, probably ever, you know, intellectually, constitutionally, he's a genius.
And, you know, Ted Kennedy then runs out and literally says, that will lying about women being into forced into back alley abortions, and blacks will have to sit at segregated lunch counters.
Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back alley abortions.
Blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters.
Rogue police could break down citizens' doors and midnight raids.
And schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution.
Writers and artists would be censured at the whim of government.
Okay, excuse me.
Really?
Great Wall Street Journal piece out that previous nominees who failed the Senate were suspected of corruption, Abe Fortas being probably the most well-known or thought unqualified, Harold Carswell.
Bork was defeated because of that smear, those lies.
And then it continued with Clarence Thomas.
And then it continued again with Justice Kavanaugh.
You know, Joe Biden had previously said he might vote to confirm Robert Bork.
Then comes the Kennedy assault.
No Democratic nominee has ever been borked, in case you're interested in history, to use the name that has now become a verb.
And they have pretty radical justices in Sonia Sotomayor, whose left-wing legal views were obvious upon her nomination.
You know, liberals they have no problem.
She got confirmed easily, as did Ruth Bader Ginsburg, as did Stephen Breyer, as did Elena Kagan.
You know, they've escalated now the character assassination, Clarence Thomas to Justice Kavanaugh.
You want to talk about filibustering appellate nominees?
Well, it was George W. Bush's first term when Senate Democrats pioneered the first use of the filibuster to block nominees to circuit courts.
That wasn't Republicans.
That was unprecedented actions by the Democrats.
Names you might remember.
Miguel Estrada left hanging for 28 months, later withdrew.
You know, though he had support of 55 senators.
2001 Judiciary Committee note, Dick Durbin, he opposed Mr. Estrada because, quote, he is Latino and couldn't be allowed to reach the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals lest he become a Supreme Court candidate one day.
Other names you might remember, Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown, Charles Pickering, you know, William Pryor, just to name a few.
The violation of norms was stopped only when the Republicans got majority and they threatened to change the Senate rules.
Then all of a sudden, Democrats, let's go to the table.
Let's negotiate a deal to vote for nominees except in extraordinary circumstances.
Republicans did not unilaterally break the filibuster for judicial nominees.
That goes to the winner Harry Reed that did that, led by him in 2013 with the enthusiastic support of Barack Obama.
That's when they rewrote Senate rules in mid-Congress on a party-line vote and also to add three seats to the D.C. circuit.
The goal was then to stack the court.
Believe they'll do it.
They've done it already.
Listen to what they're saying because they'll do it.
These liberals have done this many, many times.
The goal is stack the court.
Liberals rubber stamp everything that, you know, even Barack Obama said he wasn't even, didn't have the authority to do.
Well, we'll, we'll use the courts.
That's the whole idea.
What they can't get done at the ballot box, what they can't get done electorally, well, let's do it through judicial fiat.
And then Reed's precedent followed, well, allowed Mitch McConnell.
All right, we'll do the same when they tried to filibuster Neil Gorsuch.
That was Harry Reed who set that precedent, not the Republicans.
Democrats now vowing to break the 60-vote legislative filibuster rule.
Now they're going to do it on legislation they're threatening to do, to end the filibuster.
And never mind, as a senator, you know, Barack Obama, well, he said that the filibuster was a Jim Crow relic at Congressman John Lewis's funeral.
Wow.
As a senator, he endorsed the filibuster of Samuel Alito.
I mean, and it goes on from there.
Republicans, you know, this is, you know, listen to Ocasio-Cortez this weekend.
We'll get to listen to Schumer this weekend.
It's all on the table.
It's like a threat.
This is your new modern, radicalized socialist Democratic Party.
This is who they are.
And I've got all their comments, what they wanted in 2016.
And of course, they're all running away from that, but they've set these precedents, not Republicans.
Hey there, I'm Mary Catherine Hammond.
And I'm Carol Markowitz.
We've been in political media for a long time.
Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
That's why we started Normally, a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional sass.
You're our kind of people.
Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday.
On the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen.
Mitch McConnell just made a great point: Obama in 2016 was asking Republicans to do something that had not been done in 130 years.
I thought Democrats cared about precedent, whoever it happens to be.
You know, you got to understand here, they are already there in terms of stacking the courts.
They've already been there.
They've already done that.
They broke the filibuster for appellate nominees.
That was done by Harry Reid in 2013.
Democrats rewrote Senate rules in mid-Congress, party line vote, they added three seats to the DC circuit.
So if you think they're kidding about ending legislative filibusters, in other words, it's just a simple majority every time.
That is real.
Stacking the courts, they already have the history of doing that.
But the real precedent is what Ted Cruz was talking about.
And that is 29 times in an election year, there have been presidents that have made appointments to the Supreme Court.
It makes a difference if you have the same party in the White House and the same party running the Senate.
17 of 19 got confirmed.
Of the other 10, only two of 10 got confirmed when it's one party in the White House, another party in the U.S. Senate.
That is the precedent.
That is, you know, in spite of what you're hearing.
And by the way, in 2016, McConnell and his colleagues refused, you know, they didn't, they did what hadn't been done in 130 years.
They stayed with precedent as it relates to Merrick Garland.
They said voters should decide the issue in the election.
Schumer previously vowed the same standard in the final years of George W. Bush.
In other words, and judges were also on the Senate ballot in 2018 after the ugliness of Kavanaugh.
The GOP gained a net two seats, and the use of their elected Senate power to now confirm a nominee would be wholly legitimate in their use and their constitutional authority.
Oh, who used to remind us all the time?
Well, elections have consequences.
That was one of the, you know, Obama loved to say that.
Except when it doesn't work for them.
Democrats, they will do anything.
Everything is on the table, they're saying.
Stacking the courts, ending the legislative filibuster, even impeaching the president, impeaching the attorney general.
What?
Because they're having a temper tantrum because they lost and they know they'll lose here if precedent is followed.
Hey there, I'm Mary Catherine Hammond and I'm Carol Markowitz.
We've been in political media for a long time.
Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
That's why we started Normally, a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional sass.
You're our kind of people.
Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday.
On the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen.
All right, Live Freer.
Die America of the World on the Brink, 40% off Amazon.com.
I hope you now with 43 days until this pivotal change transformative election.
I hope you understand what is at stake here.
By the way, to Ruth Bader Ginsburg's credit, she once denounced this Democratic push to stack the Supreme Court.
She was asked about it.
There's no fixed number in the Constitution.
This court has had as few as five, as many as 10.
Nine seems to be a good number.
It's been that way for a long time.
I've heard there are some on the Democratic side that would like to increase the number of judges.
She mentioned FDR wanting to stack the Supreme Court, said it was a bad idea.
Whoopsie Daisy.
Oh boy, can't have that.
By the way, she was once, you know, explained that abortion, 2009, she sat with an interview with the New York Toilet Paper Times and explaining her thinking on Roe v. Wade, which was decided 20 years before she joined the court.
Anyway, frankly, I thought that at the time, Roe was decided there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of.
I'm like, huh?
I didn't know she had said that.
So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion.
She felt some people would risk the coercion of women into having abortions when they didn't really want to have them.
And by the way, once spoke out against Colin Kaepernick's protest, Take It a Knee was really dumb.
Compared it to flag burning and disrespectful, she called it.
She called it dumb and disrespectful before comparing it to burning a flag.
Just in case of your interested.
Democrats are within their rights, NBC says, to pack the Supreme Court after stolen seats.
This is how radical, this is the same mob in the media.
You see what?
This is the greatest contribution of the Democratic Party.
The party has now been radicalized.
Ruth Beta Ginsburg said in 2016 that the Senate should do their job and replace Antonin Scalia before the election.
And so, you know, it's just very interesting.
You know, you quote Justice Ginsburg, but only when it's convenient.
She was a left-wing justice.
Had a great relationship, apparently, with Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, which is interesting.
Now, the president was on Fox and Friends this morning.
And, you know, Nancy Pelosi's comment that she would not rule out impeachment as an option to stop a Trump nominee from being confirmed.
As she called it, we have the arrows in our quiver.
We'll play a lot of this tape later in the program today.
I don't want to take a lot of time away here yet.
I heard if I nominate, they're going to impeach me.
So they're going to impeach me for doing what constitutionally I have to do.
And then he said, if they do that, we'll win all elections.
And I think the president would be right.
At least I hope so.
You know, Democrats repeat the same old threats in a bid to keep the seat open.
And, you know, Nancy and Chuck and now AOC weighing in are all hoping to intimidate the president.
That's not going to happen.
This is not a president you will intimidate.
Why?
So they can grant statehood to D.C. and Puerto Rico and even Samoa and create, you know, will then literally stack the court and the legislative filibuster.
And if worse comes to worse, we'll even go to the impeachment.
Impeachment for what?
It's very clear what the Constitution of the United States, Article 2, Section 2 says that the president with the advice and consent shall appoint judges of the Supreme Court.
Not that complicated.
So it's a little bit scary, but this is the lawlessness now.
This is now a party.
Remember, Levin said in one of his books, a post-constitutional America, this is what he is referring to.
And so, you know, well, the problem is, this was in the New York Post.
The Democrats were already talking about packing the high court with as many as six new justices of their choosing and then looking for statehood again for D.C., Puerto Rico, maybe even Samoa.
Why?
They would want a permanent, guaranteed Democratic majority in the Senate.
That's how bad they want power.
You know, are they willing to swear off these moves?
I doubt it.
AOC is now saying it, hoping that Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death will radicalize Democratic voters.
She wasted no time after Judge Ginsburg's death on Friday night, warning fellow Democrats they need to radicalize to prevent Donald Trump from adding another conservative to the high court.
Quote, let this moment radicalize you, unquote, she said late Friday on social media video.
You know, can we just be, you know, can we mourn the death of a person that has a family for just a few seconds?
Let this moment really put everything into stark focus because this election has always been about the fight of and for our lives.
And if anything, tonight is making that more clear to more people than ever before.
And then she went on to say, urging some 45,000 people watching to double check their voter registration immediately and organize for the election and reach out to friends and family.
This is what Democrats do.
They're mobilizing.
And I guarantee you, it's going to be, you know, we're going to get back to the same, you know, bork language, back alley abortion, segregated lunch counters.
Here we go.
We're going to bork Thomas, Kavanaugh, any Republican choice.
You know, I need you to be ready, Ocasio-Cortez says, no president is the answer.
You are the answer.
Mass movements are the answer.
Okay, that's now the leader in the House of Representatives for the Democrats.
If you look at the Marquette University Law School poll, 67% of respondents believe confirmation should proceed now in 2020.
Only 32% said that the chamber should hold off on this.
Just days before the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, she died from cancer.
By the way, my dad died from pancreatic cancer.
I'll be honest, it's such a brutal cancer.
She did so well for so long.
Honestly, it's a horrible cancer to have to deal with.
Lamar Alexander is backing the president's decision.
Good for him.
It looks like the only two so far, well, if we look at the Democrats, that would be Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins.
Says at least should happen after the election.
I don't know why.
The president's president now.
Look at the changes.
The changes have all come from Democratic actions.
Now they're saying, you do what we want, or we're going to do this and this, and stack the courts and end the filibuster, push for statehood, and we'll end legislative filibustering.
So we'll just do it by a simple majority.
Well, they just don't care about precedent.
You know, and I'll tell you what is getting, you know, Biden, you know, he wrote a New York Times op-ed in 2016, just weeks after the death of Justice Galia, accusing Senate Republicans that year of neglecting their constitutional duty by stonewalling Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee.
Well, as I pointed out, precedence makes a difference.
17, 29 appointments of Supreme Court justices in election years.
Now, when it's the party in the White House aligning with the party in the Senate, 17 of 19 confirmed.
But if it's the party of the president different from the party in the Senate, only two of 10.
That is the history.
That is the precedent.
Joe Biden then saying in 2016, there is an argument that no nominee should be voted on in the last year of the presidency, but there's nothing in the Constitution or our history to support this view.
Now, Biden, by the way, is on the other side of that.
He said in a separate interview, the American people deserve a fully staffed court of nine.
Yesterday he's saying, follow your conscience.
Don't vote to confirm anyone nominated under the circumstances President Trump and Mitch McConnell have created.
Nobody created the circumstances.
Somebody passed away.
It is their constitutional role, duty, and obligation of a sworn oath to uphold the Constitution.
Tweeted out, Kamala Harris tweeted out, the Senate is holding the Supreme Court hostage for political gain.
Join me and support the AP POTUS's nominee, Merrick Garland.
Now, she released a statement in some of her final moments with her family.
She shared her fervent wish to not be, not to be replaced until a new president is installed.
We will honor that wish.
You know, Obama doing the same thing.
I mean, the hypocrisy, it just is from high heaven, but there's a lot of hypocrisy, isn't there?
They care about obstruction of justice, but not Hillary's deleted emails and bleach bit and hammers.
They care about Russian interference.
They don't care a lick about what happened with Hillary Clinton or bought and paid for Russian disinformation.
Dossier.
They don't care about premeditated fraud on a FISA court.
Not one Democrat gave a rip.
They don't care that Russia did try to influence the election.
They don't care that a major party candidate was spied on, that a president has been spied on deep into his presidency.
Not one word from any of these lawless Democrats, not a single word.
Casio-Cortez, that Republicans, we now must consider all options to block the Trump administration.
And that includes the possibility of seeking the impeachment of Trump and Attorney General Barr.
Wow.
Schumer, after strongly supporting Garland's nomination, echoed several other Democrats.
Everything is on the table, including expanding and packing the Supreme Court, as quoted by Business Insider.
Joe Kennedy on Twitter, if he holds a vote in 2020, we pack the court in 2021.
Jerry Nadler, if Senator McConnell and at Senate GOP are forced through a nominee during the lame duck session before a new Senate and president can take office, then the incoming Senate should immediately move to expand the Supreme Court.
Well, the race in Arizona with Martha McSally means more than ever.
The same with Senator Tillis in North Carolina and Purdue in Georgia.
Joni Ernst matters more than ever, and even Susan Collins matters too at this point.
All of it matters.
That's something, by the way, that she wanted.
Biden, Trump never really respected the forgotten man.
Oh, okay.
That's cracking me up.
What has Joe ever done for anybody except Joe and Hunter?
Biden.
Why did he care more about China and the xenophobic, hysterical fear-mongering for three months instead of supporting the travel ban, the subsequent travel bans, supporting the first quarantine in 50 years?
Hillary Clinton, 2016, the president nominates, the Senate advises and consents or not.
But they go forward with the process.
They don't care about what the real truth is.
You know, Senator Chris Kuhn saying Republicans are posting a constitutional threat by not considering Merrick Garland, ignoring the 29 times this has happened.
29 times.
If the Republicans would be dishonoring Justice Ginsburg legacy if they tried to confirm a new justice.
The opposite of what they're saying.
I'll play these tapes coming up.
The top names being mentioned, Amy Comey Barrett seems to be the frontrunner based on everything that I know.
Judge Amy, she's U.S. Appeals Court for the Seventh Circuit.
Joan Larson, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Who else is there?
There's a bunch of people.
I don't want to get too far ahead.
Well, Judge Barrett is being attacked.
I guarantee you, it doesn't matter.
They're going to go full-on dork.
I'm telling you, they cannot control themselves.
And they're going to make this about back alley abortions.
You could see it.
They already telegraphed it on the Huffington Post.
That's where they will head.
And it's, by the way, if Roe v. Wade were overturned, just so you understand, you know the decision would go to states.
It would not ban abortion, just in case you were interested in it.
But I don't even see that happening.
And I don't see any state in the Union having, you know, complete full, they'll have different levels.
I guess Governor Northam will allow the baby to be born, make the baby comfortable, and then let the mother decide after the baby's born.
So I guess the Commonwealth of Virginia has been decided, at least while he's governor, because that's where they are.
You know, look, the Democrats now, this is now about threats.
This is radicalism on display.
Whatever happened to elections matter.
Well, we have a Republican president and a Republican Senate.
Now the Republican Senate needs to do their job.
Where Mitt Romney's coming down, I have no faith in Mitt Romney anymore.
I don't know what's happened to him.
It's a real shame.
What, you're going to let Joe Biden make the choice, Mitt?
Wow.
Very different than what you were running on that we all fought for you to win in 2012.
All in to help you win that election.
Because you would have been a better choice than Barack Obama.
And they called you a racist, and they called you a misogynist.
And now you're partnering with these very radicals.
It's scary sometimes.
I hope you don't do it here.
I can't, you know, I can't tell you what it is.
I mean, this is why we have a constitution, ladies and gentlemen.
The rule of law matters.
Precedent matters.
You know, the president says he's down to five people.
He says he will make his choice by the end of the week, probably Friday or Saturday.
You know, is the Democrats threatening to pack the Supreme Court if they don't get what they want?
You want to talk about the ultimate political temper tantrum?
This takes the cake.
This takes the cake.
17 of 19 times when the same party aligned with the White House, 17 of 19 times they were confirmed.
Only two out of ten when it was opposite parties in the White House and the Senate.
That's where we are.
Those are the facts.
By the way, where's Joe Biden's list?
Why doesn't Joe Biden tell us who he might choose for the U.S. Supreme Court?
Hey there, I'm Mary Catherine Ham.
And I'm Carol Markowitz.
We've been in political media for a long time.
Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
That's why we started Normally, a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional sass, you're our kind of people.
Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you listen.
All right, live free or die, America, the world on the brink, 40% off Amazon.com.
Those words, it's not hyperbole.
I mean, we learn more about how radicalized this Democratic Socialist Party is every single day.
And now we've gotten to the point where, okay, you don't do what we want.
We will stack the U.S. Supreme Court.
We will end the filibuster.
Which, by the way, if you want to be historically accurate about all of this, the norms changed the filibustering of appellate nominees.
Yet that was the Democrats.
And that was during George W. Bush's first term.
Democrats pioneered the use of the filibuster to block nominees to the circuit court.
They also filibustered appellate court nominees all over the place.
The violation of norms, you know, only stopped after the GOP regained the majority and threatened to change the Senate rules.
And then all of a sudden, Senate Democrats, let's sit down, let's make a deal, only in extraordinary circumstances.
But breaking the filibuster for appellate nominees, that was Harry Reid in 2013 with the enthusiastic support of them President Obama and Joe Biden vice president.
And they rewrote the rules in mid-Congress on a party-line vote to add three seats to the D.C. circuit.
Stacking the court is not new to them.
So now it's, we'll stack the courts, we'll end the filibuster on everything, and we might even kick in a little bit of impeachment of the POTUS and the Attorney General of the United States while we're at it.
Now I'm going to play Nancy Pelosi and her arrows in her quiver to stall or prevent the Senate from acting on allowing the president to do his constitutionally clear duty.
Article 2, Section 2, U.S. Constitution.
The authority lies with he, the president, shall have the power by and with the advice and consent of the Senate to make treaties, provide two-thirds of the senators present concur.
He shall nominate and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and counsels, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law.
Oh, everything's off the table.
Now do you see what I mean?
The most radical extreme socialist agenda ever.
Here's Nancy Pelosi.
Then let's take a trip down memory lane here and go into Democrats.
And oh, it's fine to do it during an election year.
Well, we've done it 29 times, six occasions where a president has actually made a Supreme Court appointment after they lost an election.
Listen.
Some have mentioned the possibility if they try to push through a nominee in a lame duck session that you and the House could move to impeach President Trump or Attorney General Barr as a way of stalling and preventing the Senate from acting on this nomination.
Well, we have our options.
We have arrows in our quiver that I'm not about to discuss right now.
But to be clear, you're not taking any arrows out of your quiver.
You're not ruling anything out.
Good morning.
Sunday morning.
We have a responsibility.
We take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
We have a responsibility to meet the needs of the American people.
That is, when we weigh the equities, protecting our democracy requires us to use every arrow in our quiver.
Should not be able to make a nomination is totally absurd when the Constitution is 100% clear.
The president has done his constitutional duty, and now it is our job in the United States Senate to hold hearings.
That's what the Constitution calls for.
So we've done this in an election here before.
There's no reason why we can't do it now.
Do your job.
And for our response to be, na-na-na-na-na, we refuse to even hear from you.
That's an elementary school level response.
This one, it's pretty clear.
Do your job.
I think we can't have is a situation in which the Republican Senate simply says, because it's a Democratic president, we are not going to do our job.
Let's say a Republican president won, that the Democrats wouldn't say the exact same thing.
All right, could it be any more clear?
Anyway, joining us now, Jordan Seculo, Executive Director, the ACLJ, American Center for Law and Justice, attorney.
He co-hosts with his dad, Jay Seculo Live, author of his new book, The Next Red Wave, How Conservatives Can Beat Leftist Aggression, Rhino Betrayal, Deep State Subversion, discussing, obviously, this battle that has already begun.
Oh, we'll stack the courts if we don't get our way.
We'll just throw a full-on temper tantrum.
We'll end the filibuster completely.
We'll impeach the president if we have to, and even impeach the Attorney General.
Oh, I would say that why don't we just hold the whole country's government hostage while we're at it?
Yeah, Sean, you would forget that there's the COVID bills and legislation they need to do to actually help the American workers, the American families, American students.
They throw that out the table.
They're not working on that.
What they'd like to do is leave open the door to impeaching the Attorney General of the United States, not for any high crime or misdemeanor or even the president of the United States, not for any high crime or misdemeanor they could even come up with, but because they're following a constitutional duty, which is to nominate.
Now, it's interesting.
We went back and we looked during America Arland, Sean, about what we wrote about at the ACLJ, and we pulled one of our blogs from 2016, right?
It was right on our website, and it said, president has the ability to nominate.
No one questioned that when President Obama nominated.
But the Senate has the right under the Constitution to act or take no action at all.
They can never be forced to take action on nominees.
In fact, they can, in a sense, kill a nomination by taking no action.
And that is done on other nominees and other types of nominees.
But this is, again, so for everybody out there to understand all these arguments that are being made and sound bites being played back and forth from years past, it's the Democrats who have tried to won it both ways.
It's not the Republicans.
They've been very clear that if it's the same party in control and that's what people voted for, well, elections have consequences.
You move forward with the nomination.
And Mitch McConnell has the ability to do that if he's got the senators and the votes to do that.
If you are a different party, so you've got a divided government, especially between the Senate and the president, well, of course, that party can't be forced.
You cannot force that party into moving forward with advice and consent.
You just can't do it.
And especially under the new precedent that was set by Harry Reid when the rules were changed.
This whole phenomenon of what happened first to Robert Bork and women forced into back alley abortions.
I assume no matter who the president picks, the Hoving and Post pretty much has given us a preview of coming attractions with the coat hanger article today.
And no Democratic nominee, interestingly, has been Borked or Kavanaugh or Clarence Thomas.
And it's not just that.
And we're talking about some pretty radical left-wing justices that Democrats have nominated.
You know, filibustering appellate nominees, that was happening by Democrats in George W. Bush's first term.
Remember.
It comes with deals, you know, deals to get appellate nominees votes, just to have them get votes in the U.S. Senate.
And then, of course, the Democrats decide when they, you know, we'll just change the rule.
They won't have to actually get to 60 and go through that.
And so we said, okay, well, if you're going to go there, we're going to go a step further.
We're not going to let you stop our Supreme Court nominees either when we're in charge.
And that applies to both parties.
I mean, again, I keep repeating, elections do have consequences.
Barack Obama reminded us of that often, Jordan Succulo.
Yeah, he loved to say that.
But, you know, I think that it's interesting.
When you go back in history, just for everybody out there, so there's been 29 times, we've all talked about that, 29 times.
When the parties were aligned, Sean, only two of the nominations, that was 19 times, only two of the nominations to the Supreme Court didn't go through.
When the parties weren't aligned and the president still, and every time the president has nominated someone, there's never been a time when there's been a vacancy and the president didn't nominate anyone.
But when the parties weren't aligned with the president, only two got through.
So it's pretty obvious throughout our history what happened to these situations.
Only two didn't get through, you mean?
Yeah, that's right.
They did not get through.
Two didn't get through when the president was in a different party from the Senate.
And when there was a mix, when, for example, it was a president of one party and a senator of another party, the majority, then it happened how frequently?
Only two got through out of ten.
So eight were shut down.
Eight were either voted down or never got a vote.
So it was clear then that the Senate, it's been clear throughout history.
And the last time we've been in this situation, to be fair, is Herbert Hoover, actually.
He nominated someone.
He had the Republicans in the Senate, so they confirmed it was Justice Cardozo, actually.
And then it happened once, again, people are talking about kind of what happened with Eisenhower.
That was actually a recess appointment.
So because it was just not so politicized at that point.
Now, even when it wasn't politicized, Sean, you look at those numbers and say, still a very political process.
If you had your party in control of the Senate and you're the president, you got your nominee through.
If you didn't, you probably weren't, you had an 80% chance you weren't going to.
And if you did have the same party, you had an 80% chance that you were going to be successful.
That's about how it came down.
But now they're openly talking about outright revenge.
They're now saying that they'll break the 60-vote legislative filibuster, which, by the way, Harry Reid, as I mentioned, did that in 2013 as it relates to judicial appointments.
Why would they stop there?
And that they would even add two or even four new Supreme Court justices.
They've been saying that for months anyway.
And, you know, Barack Obama, John Lewis's funeral, says the filibuster is a Jim, quote, a Jim Crow relic.
Never mind that as a senator, he endorsed the filibustering of Justice Alito.
And, you know, Republicans, you know, they better do their job here.
Now, apparently we've lost two Republicans.
And that's they won't, they won't vote on a nominee until after the election, at least.
That's Murkowski and Susan Collins.
And Susan Collins is up for re-election.
So I'm not really sure where's Mitt Romney going to come down.
Jordan, do you have any idea?
Because I don't.
No, I think that's a big question.
And you can lose up to three.
So, I mean, that's where you start.
I don't want to put words into the mouth of anybody who hasn't made up their mind yet because I want to push them any directions.
But obviously, people look at Ron because of his actions during the impeachment.
People look at Corey Gardner, too.
They say he's got pressure in Colorado, so they're going to make political decisions that they think are going to benefit them.
I think, you know, for Susan Collins, already tough to excite the base, you know, for Republican voters about her in Maine.
And then now she takes actions like this.
I'm not sure.
Again, Sean, I think we need to be ready for, like you said, this is going to be a war.
We know it will be a war.
We all need to be ready.
So there's a war now in between the war we knew was coming for the election.
And this war could be very important because we don't want a court that isn't really able to operate if, in fact, we need that court is going to be weighing in on what the Democrats talk about, you know, all this election potential chaos.
So we don't want that chaos.
I don't think anybody wants to see that chaos on our side of the aisle.
We would like to see a clear election where courts don't end up deciding who wins or loses.
That's not the best option.
But if it does come down to that, you do not want a Supreme Court with eight justices on it trying to figure those situations out.
And then justice is feeling pressured to go one way.
And I don't like that makeup right now.
So what I say is this: hunker down.
Get on your phone with your U.S. senators.
It's time for battle.
It's time for war.
They put literally every card on the table.
Chuck Schumer, his first tweet out about Justice Ginsburg passing.
I watched my dad on your broadcast, Sean, that night, and you were talking about Justice Ginsburg.
Later on, we got to these discussions about the court, but we first talked about Justice Ginsburg.
In his first tweet, he says, you know, rest in peace, Justice Ginsburg.
And by the way, they better not try to replace you.
He went right to the politics of it.
All right.
Let's take a break.
That's the exact opposite of what President Trump did.
You know, President Trump had no prep.
He was walking off of a rally stage.
He got asked a question.
And I think he showed his humanity there when he talked about Justice Ginsburg.
The other side, you know, they got their quivers.
Jordan, I got a break.
You're a radio guy.
Hang in there.
I'll get right back to you.
Jordan Seculo, Executive Director, American Center for Law and Justice.
Hey there.
I'm Mary Catherine Hammond.
And I'm Carol Markowitz.
We've been in political media for a long time.
Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
That's why we started Normally, a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional sass, you're our kind of people.
Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen.
And as we continue, Jordan Sekulo, final 45 seconds here, where do you see this going?
Like, for example, if it's Judge Amy Comey Barrett, okay, mother of five biological kids to adopted kids, very, quote, religion, religious.
Oh, what a terrible thing.
She went to Notre Dame Law School.
Clerk for Anthony's Calia.
Oh, here we go, right?
It's going to be Roe v. Wade is going away.
Abortion's going to be back alley.
We're going to bork her.
They will try.
Remember, Senator Feinside says, the dogma lives deeply within you.
And this talking about her religious faith.
I mean, it was disgusting.
And they got a lot of criticism for that.
So they'll figure out a better way to say it.
But they're going to try to make her, you know, if it is Judge Barrett, then I think what they'll try to do is make her out to be some extremist.
That will backfire, Sean.
If Republicans have backbone here, This is only going to aid in more Republicans, not just Donald Trump, but more Republicans or senators getting elected and re-elected if they have the backbone.
And, you know, that's always a question with the U.S. Senate.
But I will tell you this, Sean.
I was sitting there the whole time during the impeachment on that team watching Mitch McConnell, and I gained a lot more respect for our majority leader, seeing him in action.
He is literally having to put together a group, which is not the easiest one to keep together, as you can already see from these statements that come out from Murkowski and Collins.
But if anybody can do it in 43 days, it's Mitch McConnell.
He's got to have the backing of us.
You know, he needs our backing.
If he's making the right decisions, we need to be backing him and the other Republican senators who are doing the same thing.
All right, Jordan Seculo, thank you.
When we come back more on our top story of the day, Greg Jarrett, John Solomon, then we've got Leo Terrell and Mike Gonzalez is going to join us, senior at the Heritage Foundation.
800-941-Sean is our number.
You want to be a part of the program?
Quick break, right back.
We'll continue straight ahead.
Hey there, I'm Mary Catherine Hammond.
And I'm Carol Markowitz.
We've been in political media for a long time.
Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
That's why we started Normally, a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional sass, you're our kind of people.
Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you listen.
All right, Gladi Willis.
25 till the top of the hour.
Live free or die, America, the world on the brink.
Again, thank you.
Making it number one, 43 days till you become the ultimate jury.
By the way, 40% off on Amazon.com.
So basically, now the Dems have come down to what we have been discussing all day, which is: okay, if you do what we demanded be done ourselves repeatedly, well, we're just going to stack the U.S. Supreme Court if we get power.
We're going to end the filibuster completely.
We'll even go as far as with the quivers of the arrow comment of Nancy Pelosi and move forward with impeaching the president again.
And we'll impeach the Attorney General while we're at it.
Wow, sounds like, oh, very angry people out there on the left, but this is where we are.
This is who they are.
This defines them.
It ought to scare every single American that we now have all norms of any sense of decency are just gone.
Think of it this way: where's the one honest Democrat, House or Senate, that has spoken out against what we now know to be true, which is a dirty Russian, bought and paid for dossier full of Russian disinformation, paid for by their candidate, Hillary Clinton, used to spy on a presidential candidate, a transition team, and a president.
Now, that now, all bets are off.
They are now just expressing outright lawlessness.
I mean, Hillary Clinton's comments on Joe Biden should never concede under any circumstances.
Really?
Now, if you move forward, Donald Trump is the president.
He has the right to appoint Supreme Court justices to nominate, advise, and consent.
That's the Senate's role in this process.
Now, threatening that they will stack the court if they get power.
They'll end the filibuster completely.
They might even impeach Donald Trump to stop him.
Impeach Attorney General Barr.
This is a level, you know, Mark Levin called it, well, years ago when he wrote a post-constitutional America.
He's right.
I mean, this is now what they're stating they could possibly do or are threatening to do, or some might even say, kind of where I grew up, that looks a little bit like blackmail, but I wouldn't use that in the legal sense.
Let's listen again to the hypocrisy of the Democrats.
And this is their calls in the election year for Merritt Garland sounding very different than where they are today.
There is no Biden rule.
It's frankly ridiculous.
There is no Biden rule.
It doesn't exist.
Hey, presidential election year, we always take care of nomination rules.
And then, of course, the Senate has a job to do.
Give that nominee a fair hearing and a timely vote.
The Supreme Court needs a full complement of justices on the bench.
I would go forward with the confirmation progress process as chairman, even a few months before presidential election.
Right up until September of election year, we put through judges.
The president has done his constitutional duty by sending us Judge Garland.
That starts by standing with President Obama and demanding that Republican senators do their job and vote on his nominee to the Supreme Court.
We should hold hearings.
We should put this person up for a vote.
Wouldn't it be a political disaster for the country not to have a vote?
Have the guts, the guts to vote yes or no.
The idea that the president should not be able to make a nomination is totally absurd when the Constitution is 100% clear.
The president has done his constitutional duty, and now it is our job in the United States Senate to hold hearings.
That's what the Constitution calls for.
So we've done this in an election year before.
There's no reason why we can't do it now.
Do your job.
And for our response to be, na, na, na, na, na, we refuse to even hear from you.
That's an elementary school level response.
This one, it's pretty clear.
Do your job.
I think we can't have is a situation in which the Republican Senate simply says, because it's a Democratic president, we are not going to do our job.
Let's say a Republican president won, that the Democrats wouldn't say the exact same thing.
Now, as I went through the history of all of this, the norms being, you know, the bork assault that then, of course, moved forward with Clarence Thomas leading to Justice Kavanaugh.
No Democratic nominee has ever been borked.
Now that that name has become a verb.
Justice Sotomayor, for example, you know, got a respectful hearing, 6831.
Justice Ginsburg, 96-3.
Everybody knew she was very hard left.
Breyer, 87-9.
Kagan, 6337.
Democrats now taking this to a level we've never seen before.
They're the ones that, and it's almost forgotten.
It was George W. Bush's first term.
The Senate Democrats pioneered the use of the filibuster to block nominees in circuit courts.
That was also unprecedented.
Remember, names like Miguel Estrada.
He couldn't be allowed, Dick Durbin said, to reach the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals because he could then become a candidate for the Supreme Court or Priscilla Owens or Jan S. Rogers Brown or Charles Pickering Sr. or William Pryor.
And the number of names goes on and on.
Anyway, John Solomon, investigative reporter, editor-in-chief of justthenews.com, author of Fallout, Nuclear Bribes, Russian Spies, and Washington Lies that enriched the Clinton and Biden dynasties.
Greg Jarrett, Fox News legal analyst, but also author of two number one best-selling books on the Russia hoax.
Thank you both for being with us.
The norms that have been, and there is slight hypocrisy for some Republicans here, Greg Jarrett.
But the overwhelming hypocrisy is with Democrats.
Now they're taking in on steroids and human growth hormones with outright threats of impeachment, et cetera.
Their inconsistency is pretty glaring and conspicuous.
Look, the Merrick Garland case from four years ago, that is not the standard.
That is not established precedent.
Precedent is developed through the broad landscape of history, not a singular moment in time.
29 times American presidents have nominated Supreme Court justices in an election year.
And in six occasions, beginning with John Adams, they actually nominated somebody to the Supreme Court after they lost reelection, but before their successor took office.
So the Constitution doesn't say, oh, you give up your powers under the Constitution in an election year.
No, President Trump can actually nominate somebody to the Supreme Court until the day of his last day in office.
And whoever controls the Senate dictates the rules of procedure on confirmation.
It's really that simple.
You take John Solomon and the hypocrisy knows no bounds.
But this now we're going to stack the court and the filibuster, impeach the president, impeach Bill Barr.
Listen, since July 5th, 2016, when Christopher Steele, a foreigner, walked into the FBI office in London and presented a Hillary Clinton-funded paid-forward dossier that included Russian disinformation.
The Democrats have tried to use extraordinary extra-legal efforts to thwart this president, both heading into the election, then after his inauguration, they have taken every possible step outside the normal bounds of Washington, the ways that we have normally operated to try to thwart this president.
So it doesn't surprise me that at the end of his first term, heading into election, they would still be throwing ideas like another impeachment or stacking the court because that's been there or more violent riots, which we saw all through the summer.
The truth of the matter is every time the Democrats take those actions or threaten those actions, they only move the electorate closer to Donald Trump.
They want business to get done.
They don't want silliness and showstopping.
And I think Ruth Bader Ginsburg herself said it best in 2016 in a New York Times article in the wings of the Merritt Garland nomination.
She said, a president doesn't stop being president under the Constitution during an election year.
In other words, keep doing your business until the day you're not in office.
I think the American people side with the president.
And I think all of these antics only come at the expense of the Democratic Party's credibility.
No matter who the choice is going to be, Greg Jarrett, I would anticipate Bork.
I would anticipate Clarence Thomas, Justice Kavanaugh.
I would anticipate what they did to Bush appointees as well.
You know, the norms, the violation of the norms, only stopped after the GOP regained a majority and threatened to change the Senate rules.
But filibustering appellate nominees, that was first pioneered by the Democrats, by Harry Reid and company.
The filibuster to block nominees just to circuit courts.
That was unprecedented.
And it took a negotiated deal, finally, to vote for nominees in extraordinary circumstances, unless there were extraordinary circumstances.
Your Republicans did not unilaterally break the filibuster for judicial nominees.
That was Harry Reid who did that in 2013.
And, you know, every member of the Senate on the Republican side should have sent him an early Christmas gift that year.
But the question is, and you broached it, is, you know, will President Trump's nominee face Kavanaugh-like accusations?
Well, the fact that the president is committed to replacing a female justice with a female nominee, that diffuses Kavanaugh-like accusations of, for example, sexual assault.
That's just not going to fly.
Now, don't misunderstand.
Whoever the nominee is will be attacked.
And if, for example, it's Annie Coney Barrett, we know the attack.
It happened three years ago during her confirmation hearing to the Seventh Circuit.
Senators like Durbin and Feinstein repeatedly badgered her about her faith, which, by the way, is unconstitutional.
Article 6 says religion is not a test for public office.
Not that Durbin or Feinstein would ever know or comprehend that.
Maybe they just don't care.
Barrett is not susceptible or any of the president's nominees, if they're women, to a Kavanaugh smear.
You won't have the hit and run by sudden witnesses who emerge from the woodwork, but they will be attacked on abortion.
And if it's Barrett on religion, she's a devout Catholic.
Okay.
Now, if you believe as I do that Roe v. Wade is bad law, like they had the coat hanger on an article in the Hovington Post, I'm like, wow.
You know, this goes back to the Bork assault.
And, you know, women will be forced into back alley abortions and blacks would have to sit at segregated lunch counters.
The reality is it would go back to the states.
Abortion wouldn't be illegal in the country at all.
I think you'd be hard pressed to find many states, if any at all, that they might have varying restrictions, but that would stop abortion being legal in America.
I just don't see it happening.
New York, never.
California, never.
You know, Governor Northam, we already know where he stands, post-birth abortion even.
So it's a red herring, but that is what I would anticipate is going to be the loudest cry and fear-mongering and frankly falsehood and lie.
John?
Yeah, it is the issue that Democrats are most worried about.
For them, this will be a litmus test on abortion in Roe v. Wade, because that's how they raise money.
That's how they're going to motivate people to get to the polls.
Donald Trump could undercut all that motivation if he got the entire thing done before election day.
What would Democrats have to fight for if the issue was resolved?
What's interesting is taking a look at the list of the people he's assembled.
He's put people that are very strongly in the conservative credential camp.
That gives his base great hope that conservatives will get somebody that flips a sixth vote to the conservative side.
But he's also gotten people who've been, in some cases, nominated very recently.
Judge Lagoya, just last year.
So you have these sort of judges that have already been through one confirmation hearing, one FBI background check.
There isn't a whole lot to learn about them new, and yet they have the sort of credentials that Donald Trump was elected by his base to pursue.
And I think that he's in a very strong position to win this battle in a very unique political circumstance.
It's very rare that it's happened this way, but I think the cards are in his favor, and that's why Democrats are so panicked.
Unbelievable times we're living in, I'll tell you that.
Anyway, we have Justin News, John Solomon, and Greg Jarrett, Fox News legal analysts.
All right, John, we're going to give you the last word today.
So you tell us, where do you see this headed?
I think we're headed to 10 days of extraordinary drama in Washington, but all of them playing to the president's political advantage.
He's going to get his nominee picked.
It's going to get the reaction.
The Senate process will start.
In the meantime, in the background, you'll see major releases of information from the Senate, from the Grassley and Johnson investigation of Ukraine and Russia, and probably the first report or information coming out of the John Durham investigation all in the next 10 days.
It's going to be dramatic.
Buckle your seatbelt.
But all of these things, I think, play to the president's advantage heading into the final 40 days of the election.
All right.
Thanks so much, John Solomon, Greg Jarrett, 800-941.
Sean Tolfrey, telephone number.
A lot more to get to, including, again, the fear of real voter fraud attempts.
Leo Terrell, Mike Gonzalez, Sr. at the Heritage Foundation, the plot to change America.
We're going to talk about all of these important issues and much more.
It's 43 days and you are the ultimate jury.
Live free or die, America, the world on the brink.
No, no, this is not hyperbole.
Amazon.com, 40% off.
Great Hannity at 9 Eastern.
We'll continue straight ahead.
All right, live free or die, America, the world on the brink.
You are the ultimate jury in 43 days, 40% off Amazon.com.
Also, Walmart, Target, Costco's Books a Million, Barnes and Noble.
Again, thank you for making it number one.
This is getting more real and more alive.
I have a greater sense of urgency every single passing minute of every day.
There are two articles out, one by Foxnews.com and one by the New York Post.
Foxnews.com, group led by Black Lives Matter's founder, fiscally sponsored project of Pro-China org report.
And a group led by one of the founders of the, now we're talking about the group, Black Lives Matters.
You know, what do we want dead cops?
When do we want them now?
Having ties to a progressive pro-China organization that acts as the fiscal sponsor to the group, according to this new report that is out by the Heritage Foundation.
And we have the New York Post reporting on this as well, how a trained Marxist founder, Black Lives Matter, has teamed up on this new venture with a pro-Chinese Communist Party organization.
It's an advocacy group called Black Futures Lab, backed by the Chinese Progressive Association, according to this new report.
Let me go back in time and remind people a little bit here.
You have Patrice Cullers, Black Lives Matter co-founder, saying they are trained Marxist.
You've got, you know, on top of that, member Hawk Newsom, Black Lives Matter leader, was on Fox News with Martha McCallum, threatening to burn the system down.
Let's listen to that.
I also think that it might, I think of a lot of things.
The first thing I think is that we actually do have an ideological frame.
Myself and Alicia in particular are trained organizers.
We are trained Marxists.
We are super versed on sort of ideological theories.
And I think that what we really try to do is build a movement that could be utilized by many, many black folk.
I watched you, you know, talking on a bunch of different interviews today.
And you said, burn it down.
You said, burn it down.
It's time.
So that makes me think that you want to burn it down.
I said, if this country, if this country doesn't give us what we want, then we will burn down this system and replace it.
All right.
And I could be speaking figuratively.
I could be speaking literally.
It's a matter of interpretation.
The group, remember, what do we want dead cops?
When do we want them now?
Pigs in a blanket, fry them like bacon.
Separate and apart from protesters that chant Black Lives Matter.
I always make the distinction.
Anyway, joining us now is Leo Terrell, civil rights attorney at the Leo Terrell on Twitter.
Mike Gonzalez, senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, also authoring the book, The Plot to Change America, and what's really happening in terms of the funding of the group Black Lives Matter, its affiliation here that this new report talks about.
Otherwise, I've got to tip my hat to Leo Terrell.
I was wrong.
He was right.
He won the poll.
The old Leo 1.0, when he would stand up, rip off his microphone and his earpiece and walk off the set of my TV show.
Apparently, I'm not allowed to show because Leo got more votes than I did on Hannity.com.
All right, let's go to Mike Gonzalo, Senior Fellow Heritage.
And, okay, I'm trying to understand this level of radicalism.
It's very clear.
The Black Futures Lab, which is one of many, many ventures that Alicia Garza has, Alicia Garza sits atop a vast revolutionary empire with chapters all over the country and all over the world, Canada, Europe, etc.
So this one venture of hers, Black Futures Lab, is a fiscally sponsored project of the Chinese Progressive Association of San Francisco.
There are many Chinese progressive associations around the country.
There's one in Boston, one in New York.
This one in San Francisco has been a promoter of the People's Republic of China from the very beginning, from the very beginning.
And it continues to this day.
For example, in May this year, the CPA in San Francisco, along with other institutions and the CPA in Boston, signed a letter supporting the Biden campaign, saying they wanted Biden to win, but warning the Biden campaign to end China bashing and adding, quote, fanning anti-China sentiment will also come at a cost at the ballot box.
So in many other ways, this CPA in San Francisco has gone too bad.
Now, it should not be surprising that it would be the fiscally sponsored project of Black Futures Lab because Alicia Garza, as you said, and Patrice Colours, you know, Paltimetti, don't hide their Marxism.
It's funny because it is the media that tries to hide their Marxism.
They themselves, when they speak, are quite open about it.
They say the revolutionaries.
Patrice Colours herself trained at the community, the Labor Community Strategy Center run by Eric Mann, a former member of the Weather Underground.
So there are many connections like this, Sean.
Well, let me go to Leo Torell.
I mean, I'm listening to this, and I know that people don't make the distinction that I make between the group Black Lives Matter and the chants that I've mentioned and the things that have been said in interviews and people that were, and there were a lot of peaceful protesters that chant Black Lives Matter, but not part of the group.
I make a distinction.
Maybe some others do not, but I think it's only fair.
But the group itself, when you read this, what are your thoughts and what are the dangers here?
Because they're fairly obvious to me.
Well, I'll tell you right now, this needs to be understood.
I don't support the group, the Black Lives Matter group.
And I think all Black Lives Matter.
But when you play that audio clip, she says she speaks for a lot of black Americans.
And this distinction, the American public cannot see that distinction.
And they're pouring in corporate dollars, the NBA, all these professional sports, out of guilt that, hey, we need to contribute to Black Lives Matter.
And these Marxists, who are anti-American, anti-God, anti-American institutions, are dangerous.
And they're being normalized by the media because the media won't discuss what Mike just discussed, what you just played.
And I'm telling you, we have a concurrent issue here.
We've got to elect the president, and we've got to get the word out that these are Marxist individuals who want to destroy every value that we stand for as Americans.
Well, I think it's a no-brainer, but I mean, obviously, this group has sway, this level of radicalism.
I mean, you know, we see this in this whole debate.
Well, you're either going to do what we want.
And by the way, we laid out the case, the real precedent.
It's 29 times that presidents have nominated Supreme Court justices in their final year of a term.
And it has everything to do, 17 of 19, when it's the same party in the White House and in the Senate.
They've been confirmed.
Only two out of 10 were not confirmed or were confirmed when it was one party in the presidency, one party in the Senate, Mike Gonzales.
Yeah, you know, again, the media will not say that, just like the media will not report anything about Black Lives Matter.
And again, I want to repeat what you and Leo just said.
Everybody adheres to the sentiment that Black Lives Matter.
It is the organizations.
And this is what people do not make this distinction because the media is not reporting on this.
The organizations founded by Patrice Koulers, by Alicia Garza, and Baro Paltometti are Marxist organizations.
By the way, I don't know if I'm breaking some news here, but I don't know if you know.
This weekend, they have scrubbed all Marxist languages from their websites, from the websites of different BLM organizations.
So, for example, the Movement for Black Lives, which had very explicit anti-capitalist language, it's no longer there.
Luckily, a lot of us have screen captures.
The same thing with the Black Lives Matter global movement, Global Network, which had language that said it was against the family, against the patriarchal family.
That language is now also.
Well, that speaks volumes.
Whenever they start scrubbing stuff, it usually means trouble, right?
But you're saying there's a real plot to change America.
Now, I would argue stacking the Supreme Court, ending the filibuster, threatening to impeach a president and an attorney general, throwing a temper tantrum because you don't like the fact that Donald Trump won the election and is making a Supreme Court appointment.
You know, that's wanting to change America pretty drastically and radically and dangerously, in my view.
Yeah, you know, the reason I named my book, The Plot to Change America, is not because there are people meeting on Thursday nights in Cambridge, Massachusetts, or in Madison, Wisconsin.
It is because they're all reading the same thing.
They all want to fill, they divide the country into groups, fill the members of these groups with grievances.
So these grievances will act as catalysts to change the country and make it into a model that America was never intended to be.
That's why I called my book The Plot to Change America.
And I go through how this is done.
I had no idea that the summer of 2020 was going to happen and that we were going to see the consequences play out in our streets.
Leo, you were going to say, sorry to interrupt.
Oh, yeah, I was about to say something.
This is very important.
By the way, those two co-founders, they got Hollywood agents, Mike and Sean.
I've been researching them.
They got Hollywood agents.
So they're being normalized.
And that probably explains why those screenshots have been, you know, why they scrubbed their background.
I want to go back to the Supreme Court.
By the way, everybody has a Hollywood agent.
You live in Los Angeles.
You have a Hollywood agent, don't you?
Yeah, but they're looking.
It's a propaganda ploy.
I'm fair.
I'm honest.
I'm being consistent.
These individuals are trying to normalize their position, and they're radical.
And that's my point.
Okay, not with the political.
By the way, I think you should write a book and entitle it, Leo 2.0.
Okay, I got a surprise for you.
Next time I see you on television, Sean, I got a big surprise for you.
The Democrats are going ballistic because the Senate and the Republicans and Donald Trump have every right to move forward with this nominee.
And I think that the Democrats are just yelling, but they have no legal authority.
The control, the Constitution, all points in favor of Donald Trump nominating and the Supreme, I mean, the Republican Senate advise and consent.
The only thing I hope Donald Trump does is he picks someone in the replica of Justice Galia, someone who's going to be a true interpreter of the Constitution.
This is what is at stake here.
And it's the temper tantrum factor in all of this.
I mean, you know, what is Nancy Pelosi said?
We have the arrows in our quiver to stall or prevent the Senate from acting on filling Ginsburg.
She doesn't have any arrows in that quiver at all.
The Senate's going to do what Mitch McConnell says it's going to do, not what Nancy Pelosi wants them to do.
Mike Gonzalez.
Yeah, I think the reason why the left goes so nuts over the Supreme Court is that they cannot legislate their ideas, right?
They cannot legislate their policies.
They're not popular policies.
So they need the Supreme Court to stampede.
They need the courts to do the things they cannot do.
And for them, obviously, as you know, government is everything.
And when you have Congress is not legislating anyway, when you have things depending on the courts, the lifestyle they want, the things they want, that is the end-of-expector.
That's why you're seeing the freakout that is happening right now.
Well, I think, Leo, where this is headed, and we got a preview of coming attractions with the coat hanger picture on the Huffington Post, no matter who the president picks.
And I think they're going to have a very hard time in this case.
You know, they're going to accuse her of what?
Probably say, well, she's an abortion extremist.
She's religious.
She's a Catholic.
I'm like, okay, so what?
Nancy Pelosi says she's Catholic, right?
Okay, I'm not questioning her Catholicism at all.
Dianne Feinstein attacked her when she was, Amy called it Barrett, attacked her when she was being up for a nomination for the Seventh Circuit.
The point is this, John, the Democratic Party is fractured.
They get in a tizzy when a woman is nominated by a Republican.
They get into a tizzy when a black joins the Republican Party because that's their so-called monopoly, and they don't know how to react.
And if Donald Trump goes forward and selects a female nominee, the Democrats are going to go berserk because that's their base.
Blacks, minorities, women, and that's breaking up.
Democratic Party is totally fractured and they're losing their base because people are moving towards the right and voting for Republicans.
Case in point, Leo Terrell.
There's always hope, Leo.
All right.
Congrats on your win.
There, I said it publicly.
We're done now.
Are we finished?
You need any more groveling or are we finished?
I'll have a surprise for you when I see you on television.
Oh, man.
I can hardly wait.
All right.
Thank you, Mike Gonzalez.
Leo 2.0.
Thank you.
All right, live free or die.
America, the world on the brink.
If you haven't gotten a copy, everything that is going to matter moving forward as a country, we have laid out for you 40% off on Amazon.com, but it's all there.
And it's even worse now.
I mean, now with the passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the president vowing to do his constitutional duty and the Democrats just lying through their teeth.
I mean, the rank hypocrisy, the stench, it just, it's to high heaven.
Well, we'll stack the courts if we get control of the Senate, really?
We'll end the filibuster.
Well, they're the ones that ended it the first time.
We'll impeach the president even if we have to.
And as Nancy Pelosi says, we have arrows in our quiver to stall or prevent the Senate from acting on filling Ginsburg's seat.
We'll impeach the Attorney General.
We'll impeach everybody, I guess.
This is how radical this new party is.
This is the most radical major party ticket in the history of this country.
You know, the very party that denied violence all throughout the summer that we were watching with our own eyes.
New research paper from University of Utah criminal law professor Paul Cassell suggesting, you know, all this gun violence that we've been watching in all these blue states, liberal cities run by liberal Democrats for decades.
What we've seen all summer, yeah, all of this, you know, now you can contribute, it attributes to the shift in police tactics.
And the research contends that as a result of depolicing and a move away from proactive policing, approximately 710 additional people were murdered and an additional 2,800 were shot in June and July of this summer.
The paper is entitled Explaining the Recent Homicide Spikes in U.S. Cities, the Minneapolis Effect, the Decline in Proactive Policing.
One of the examples they use is New York, the NYPD experienced a cut in overtime pay that he believes has contributed to the city's crime increase.
Well, they also cut it by a billion dollars.
There's also no support from their fearless leader, Comrade de Blasio.
But anyway, what we're hearing from rank and file police officers: look, when you come on shift, make sure you get home alive.
Make sure you get home unindicted.
That's all real.
In Chicago, you know, we always have our 40, 50, 60, 70 shootings every weekend.
Their postal workers now threatening to stop delivering the mail after the mail carrier shooting.
I mean, it just gets worse and worse.
It is unrest, a war on cops, liberal cities in crisis.
You know, all weekend long, the president, you know, literally calls California deputies injured in ambush shooting.
You know, he's literally like, how is this happening in our country?
Called on our deputies to check on their spirits, wish them a speedy recovery, remind them the American people are behind them.
You have an ex-Marine bar owner who had to shoot and kill him, shoots and kills himself just hours before he was due to turn himself in for a shooting and killing that took place in Omaha.
This is all part of this crazy violence on this people on all sides, but mostly led by the radical members of the group Antifa or the group Black Lives Matter, separate and apart from people chanting it.
In New York, by the way, they got a massive F Cuomo and de Blasio mural painted on a Brooklyn street.
People can't be happy because they're afraid to leave their homes.
Minneapolis police warned business owners reinforcements to help handle violence aren't coming anytime soon.
But don't worry, the city council, they hire private security.
In Louisville, federal buildings are boarded up ahead of the anticipated Breonna Taylor grand jury decision.
People are scared to death there.
Protests resume after the wildfire hiatus, you know, more vandalism out in Portland.
Took a brief hiatus because of the wildfires.
Man slashed the police car tires, left a handwritten note, F the police.
F Trump, vote Jesus.
Sounds really Jesus-like.
Kentucky cops stabbed in the face, suspect charged with attempted murder, Oklahoma senator to file legislation making the attacks on police hate crimes.
That Senator Casey Murdoch, Oklahoma state senator, Arizona GOP sheriff candidate, I will line up jail buses to arrest the rioters.
Probably win on that platform.
You have one of the Steelers players wears the name of a slain police officer on his helmet.
These are scary times for people.
In New York City, you know, the Attorney General Barr, you know, is basically saying that New York is now labeled anarchist jurisdictions by the Justice Department, targeted to lose a lot of federal money, which is what, $7 billion.
Why?
Because they can't protect the city.
They're not doing their job to protect people.
And people are now suffering the consequences as a result.
It's sad.
Meanwhile, Joe Biden confused again.
200 million people have died from COVID-19.
It's estimated that 200 million people have died, probably by the time I finish this talk.
The complications of COVID-19.
Oh, 200 million people.
Okay.
So would you like to say a couple words?
Am I supposed to speak now or is Karen supposed to speak?
I don't know.
I don't want to get in trouble here.
Oh, it's me.
Okay.
At the medical school, or not, I guess it wasn't accidentally on the campus, but the people from the medical school were at the I want to be clear.
I'm not going nuts.
I'm not sure whether it's a medical school or where the hell I spoke.
I'm sorry.
Who was I supposed to go to next?
Anybody who?
He's saying that it was President Mylos.
We hold these truths to be self-evident.
All men and women created by the gold.
You know the thing.
You know, there's a great philosopher, and he talked about Jill puts notes up on my mirror when she wants me to, where I shave to get messages across to me.
All right, Joe, you've been out a lot lately.
You might want to take a break.
You need a few days to recover.
Michael Moore attacking Biden.
Why are you ignoring the black community in Michigan?
Wow.
And of course, you know, everybody made a big deal about the president when he was on with Stephanopoulos saying my act.
The president, you know, all right, so the Woodward book comes out.
You know, the president's, I said, I tried to downplay the real dangers.
So he goes on the Stephanopoulos town hall and he's explaining in many ways I upplayed it in terms, I didn't downplay the seriousness of it.
I upplayed it in terms of action.
And that's 10 days after the first identified case of coronavirus.
Well, that would make all the difference, wouldn't it?
Not trying to scare people, but he acted faster than anybody else.
Of course, he won't get credit.
All right, 800-941, Sean, you want to be a part of the program.
Joe Ella Je Georgia, 43 days, Joe.
I'm counting on you to pull Georgia in the right column.
Sean, we're going to do it.
And I think President Trump ought to immediately nominate Amy Comey Barrett.
I think she would be great and a great Supreme Court justice.
And I think you'll do it.
And I think the Senate will get it through.
And I think we're going to win a landslide election thanks to you.
And I love your book, Leah Free or Diabetes.
I'm not thinking the way you are, Joe.
I'm just not.
I refuse to, you know, I think this is going to be a very hard-fought, tough election.
And I think there's nothing the Democrats are not capable of.
And this, you know, what they're threatening and saying that they will do should scare everybody.
Joe Biden shouldn't concede under any circumstances, Hillary is saying.
So we've got to have a massive legal operation.
I know the Biden campaign is working on that.
We have to have poll workers.
And I urge people who are able to be a poll worker.
We have to have our own teams of people to counter the force of intimidation that the Republicans and Trump are going to put outside polling places.
This is a big organizational challenge, but at least we know more about what they're going to do.
And, you know, Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances because I think this is going to drag out.
And eventually, I do believe he will win if we don't give an inch.
Wow.
You know, I'm looking at all the changes in the voting since 2016.
Three states now voting entirely by mail, Washington, Colorado, Oregon.
States with expanded absentee requests no longer requiring excuses.
There's a lot of those states.
States with universal mail-in ballot for the first time, California, Hawaii, Nevada, New Jersey, Vermont.
Told you about Pennsylvania Supreme Court extending the deadline for mail-in ballots to allow ones received by November 6th.
That's three days after the election.
Michigan is going to expand the deadline to count ballots after a judge ruled that they can be counted up to 14 days after the election.
And this is, you know, all this is concerning to me.
I don't trust people that wouldn't even be critical of spying on a presidential candidate with Russian disinformation provided by the other candidate.
Not a single word condemning all of this abuse of power.
I'm going to work hard to win this thing.
Yeah, you got to.
We're six down, two minutes to go.
No timeouts.
You're on your own 20.
You got to march down the field 80 yards, cross the plane, kick the extra point.
That's how I'm viewing it.
Don in Iowa, what's up, Don?
Hi, Sean.
Thank you for taking my call.
I appreciate it.
Thank you for calling.
I'm a Marine veteran, but my call is about Ruth Vader Ginsburg's passing.
First of all, my condolences to the family.
I really appreciate her spirit in her life.
She was a tough fighter.
She didn't always fight the way I liked it, but she was a tough fighter.
But the reason I'm calling is I keep seeing the Democrats saying we have no business nominating somebody to the Supreme Court in an election year.
Well, we just had an impeachment attempt during an election year.
And more important, it was during an election year in which there was a pandemic looming, and they had to know about it.
And they still forced the president to focus on them rather than the job of governing and protecting this country.
And so when Harry Reid changed the rules to make it a simple majority vote, and Mitch McConnell warned him that he was making a big mistake, well, they threw, they fired the first shot, if you will, and we have to respond equally.
Listen, I completely agree with you.
I mean, I think it's just, it's obvious.
We've gone through the history of all of this here, and precedents, oh, we hear precedents matters on, for example, Roe v. Wade.
Well, precedent matters in terms of, well, sorry, the reality is that, you know, whenever you have one party in power in the White House, one party in power in the Senate, they've only chosen two of 10 picks.
But when it's both the same party in the White House and the Senate, 17 of 19.
These are 29 times in election years this has happened.
This is nothing new.
And so Democrats want to have it both ways.
Democrats have set every dangerous change in precedent, and now they're threatening to do more by stacking the courts and in a filibuster, even impeaching the president, impeaching Barr, and the many arrows in our quiver comment of Nancy Pelosi.
Some have mentioned the possibility, if they try to push through a nominee in a lame-duck session, that you in the House could move to impeach President Trump or Attorney General Barr as a way of stalling and preventing the Senate from acting on this nomination.
Well, we have our options.
We have arrows in our quiver that I'm not about to discuss right now.
But to be clear, you're not taking any arrows out of your quiver.
You're not ruling anything out.
Good morning.
Sunday morning.
We have a responsibility.
We take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
We have a responsibility to meet the needs of the American people.
That is, when we weigh the equities, protecting our democracy requires us to use every arrow in our quiver.
And the lawlessness being supported by the most radical extreme Democrats out there.
All right, that's going to wrap things up for today.
All right, Hannity 9 Eastern.
We have our own Lawrence Jones outside the Supreme Court.
There's been a lot of chaos out there since the death of Ruth Beta Ginsburg.
Lindsey Graham heads the Senate Judiciary Committee.
He will weigh in Kevin McCarthy, Judge Pirro, Lou Dobbs, Mike Huckabee, Kim Klasick tonight, Leo Terrell, Candace Owens.
9 Eastern, SetU DVR, Hannity, Fox News.
We'll see you tonight.
Tomorrow, 42 days, and you are the ultimate jury.
Best election coverage right here on the Sean Hannity radio show, Hannity Tonight on TV.
