Sean Hannity Show - Eyes on Virginia - November 10th, Hour 3

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 10, 2021 - Sean Hannity Show

30:05

Eyes on Virginia - November 10th, Hour 3

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	This is an iHeart Podcast.
	You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
	We got you.
	And I'm Carol Markovich.
	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, News Roundup, Information Overload Hour, Sean Hannity Show, 800-941-SEAN.
	If you want to be a part of the program, I have been watching with great fascination the This this trial going on as it relates to Kyle Rittenhouse.
	You might remember he was involved in this case in Kenosha, Wisconsin.
	And at issue here is whether or not he acted in self-defense, or in fact whether or not he's guilty of the charges of murder that have been made against him.
	A very dramatic moment yesterday.
	As the testimony of the key prosecution.
	The guy that's given the testimony.
	His name is Corey Chara Fisi.
	Anyway, he said during cross-examination, he literally was asked by Rittenhouse's attorney.
	It wasn't until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him, that he fired, right?
	Let me play it for you.
	Does this look like right now your arm is being shot?
	That looks like my bicep being vaporized, yes.
	Okay.
	And it's being vaporized as you're pointing your gun directly at him.
	Yes?
	Yes.
	Okay, so when you were standing three to five feet from him with your arms up in the air, he never fired.
	Right?
	Correct.
	It wasn't until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him with your gun, on your hands down, pointed at him, that he fired, right?
	Correct.
	I mean, just devastating for the prosecution in the case, uh, because the laws are very clear in Wisconsin in terms of self-defense.
	We'll get into that with Greg Jarrett and Leo Torrell in just a second here.
	Um there were moments today where the judge in the case just absolutely ripped the prosecution.
	Um I want you to listen to these three cuts.
	It's fascinating stuff.
	Why would you think that that made it okay for you without any advance notice to bring this matter before the jury?
	You are already, you were I I was astonished when you began your examination by commenting on the defendant's post arrest silence.
	That's basic law.
	It's been basic law in this country for 40 years, 50 years.
	I have no idea why you would do something like that.
	With all due respect.
	I'm not gonna rehash the motion.
	That's absolutely untrue.
	And there's no no no.
	Your arguments of record.
	My comments are of record, and why I ruled as I did is of record.
	There's nothing that I heard in this trial to suggest anything's changed, even if you're correct in your assumption that you know more than uh I did at the time.
	Uh you should have come to the court and say, I want to go into this.
	Uh why you would think that you could go into it without any advanced notice to the court, I don't understand that.
	And as the uh defense is pointing out, you're an experienced trial lawyer, and this should not have been going into.
	You know, it's interesting, Your Honor, because the entire defense theory in this case is Joseph Rosentbaum, who was unarmed.
	Tell me what the defense theory of the case is.
	The court has seen no reason to change its ruling.
	And just so this record is clear, in spite of the lengthy statement by Mr. Banger, before we started today, the court specifically stated in Mr. Binger's presence, there's been nothing to have me change any of my rulings.
	There have been numerous occasions during this trial where they've opened the door.
	He knows if you're gonna go into something that's been excluded in a pretrial order, you better ask the court, you better get permission.
	This is ridiculous.
	It wasn't excluded, Your Honor.
	You know why it was excluded in the first place?
	Because it's it was propensity evidence.
	That is exactly what 90404 is designed to prevent.
	You're talking about his attitudes.
	His attitude is he wants to shoot people.
	Now, I've admitted that kind of evidence in other trials when it's been appropriate.
	I didn't admit it in this case because to me, what I've heard in this trial.
	And by the way, Mr. Richards absolutely correctly points out that just hours ago, I said I had heard nothing in this trial to change any of my rulings.
	So why are you?
	Pardon me?
	That was before this brazen with me.
	That is the judge saying, don't get brazen with me, just tearing apart the prosecution.
	Um I would argue we're probably closer to a mistrial than anybody might know.
	Uh prosecutors trying to portray Rittenhouse as the instigator of of violence, then the admission of their key witness.
	I it was actually on Monday, uh, followed up by what you just heard today.
	Uh Rittenhouse was on the stand as well and had a moment where he broke down.
	Let me play that part for you.
	Look over my shoulder, and Mr. Rosenbaum, Mr. Rosenbaum was now running from my right side.
	Um I was cornered from in front of me with Mr. Zeminski, and there were people.
	Joining us now, Greg Jarrett, Fox News contributor, best-selling author, host of the podcast, The Brief, Leo 2.0 Terrell, uh, who's been following every aspect of this.
	Uh, I did not think I would get as engaged and involved as I have so far.
	Leo 2.0 will start with you.
	But I between the video that his former attorney, Lynn Wood had put together, and the testimony, uh the key prosecution witness testimony on Monday, followed by the judge's, you know, harsh admonition of the prosecution.
	Uh this has taken a turn, I think very few people expect it.
	I think you're 100% correct.
	And I think uh a motion for a mistrial is something that's going to be raised by the defense.
	How often have you seen a defendant take the witness in?
	That's confidence in their testimony.
	I've been watching it all day.
	And Rittenhouse is a good defendant on the witness stand.
	He gave a very logical reasons as to why he was there.
	He was not there to shoot up the town.
	He was helping people.
	So he doesn't have that evil motive.
	And he justified on direct, and I think he's done a great job on cross-examination.
	When you look at his testimony, he's believable, and he has withstood the cross-examination.
	You throw in the element of a judge who is clearly, clearly upset with the prosecution.
	And let me say this 30 years of being the trial attorney, when you know when you're losing a case, you start throwing everything against the wall.
	And this prosecutor knows his case is flipping.
	And this judge, if he decides to grant this mistrial, which is very, very draconian because it takes the verdict away or the decision making away from the jury, he has ample evidence because his prosecutor has crossed the line.
	One final point.
	Greg would know this.
	You don't comment on a defendant's silence.
	And this prosecutor did that.
	And a defendant has a constitution, constitutional right to remain silent.
	And that prosecutor, experience, I doubt it, broke that rule, and that judge called him on it.
	I think this case is slipping out of the hands of the prosecution.
	And one final point, I'm sorry to bring this up.
	When you look at the way this case was portrayed by the left wing media in August of 2020, and you look at the fact that we're portrayed out in the court of law, this case was poorly disguised.
	I mean, reported by the left wing media.
	This kid is a good kid who got caught up and defended himself.
	Wow, that's a powerful defense.
	Uh Greg Jarrett, first explain if you can, the judge's admonition here that we just played.
	Well, the judge is angry for several reasons.
	First of all, as Leo pointed Out, uh, the prosecutor, unbelievably.
	Uh I mean, this is you just never do this.
	Commented on the defendant's right to remain silent.
	That's a constitutional right.
	You can't hold that against him, and the prosecutor was trying to do that.
	He also has a right under the Constitution to be present for the trial, but the prosecutor crossed the line again saying, Oh, he sat there and listened to other witnesses so he could uh customize his own testimony to them.
	Again, a violation.
	Uh that angered the judge.
	But but most of all, the judge had told the prosecutor in advance, you can't comment about prior use of the gun and the defendant's remarks about his his gun.
	It's irrelevant, it's immaterial, it's prejudicial, it's inadmissible.
	So what did the prosecutor do?
	He did exactly what the judge told him not to do.
	So it's understandable that this judge is angry.
	I think I mean it looks to me, based on the testimony of the witnesses that self-defense has been established and there should be an acquittal, not on just one, but all three of the main charges.
	And if there isn't, uh, you know, I can see this judge uh throwing out the jury verdict and instituting a directed verdict in favor of the defendant.
	And if that doesn't happen and the defendant is somehow convicted, he has ripe grounds for an appeal by virtue of the misconduct of the prosecution.
	I mean, it's pretty amazing.
	Now, Wisconsin's self-defense law is very clear.
	It allows someone to use deadly force only if necessary to to prevent imminent death, great bodily harm, and that that's what the jury's ultimately gonna have to decide.
	Does the testimony on Monday coupled with the the video of that night with so many people armed in the streets, utter chaos?
	Um does that does that make it so they can't reach that high bar in in the sense that in other words once somebody says that they pointed the gun at him, he has a right to self-defense, whether they intended to shoot him or not, correct, Leo?
	Well, yeah, uh, let me tell you right now, you mentioned all those other things.
	It's what Rittenhouse feared at the moment when he fired, and was his fear reasonable, objectively reasonable.
	And when he described each event as to what he encountered, the element is what he perceived and what the the his reaction was, was it reasonable?
	I think there's been a when you look at the totality of the evidence, and we look at each actual firing, because you have to look at each one separately.
	I think it's a compelling case for uh self-defense.
	I think he's provided overwhelming evidence coupled with the admission from the one guy who said he pointed you didn't fire until you look till the gun was pointed by him at Rittenhouse.
	Now, you also have this testimony that he went there, he brought with him a medical kit.
	Uh, he went there to help defend stores from being burned to the ground.
	He also brought in uh a semi-automatic rifle with him, Greg Jarrett.
	What is the impact of him on tape saying that he's there to help because he said it at the time?
	Well, it it demonstrates he didn't have a malicious attempt to shoot people up, uh that he only fired his weapon in self-defense.
	And you know, the the gun toting witness who was forced on cross-examination to admit that he not only advanced on Rittenhouse but pointed his gun at him, said uh, well, you know, I didn't intend to point my gun at the accused.
	Well, that's irrelevant.
	He did point his gun.
	And the law doesn't demand the Rittenhouse somehow be a mind reader or guess at the gunman's underlying intention.
	The defendant's allowed to assume that since someone's pointing a gun at him, that he's about to be shot, and that entitles him to defend himself with lethal force.
	And as we continue, we're following the Kyle Rittenhouse uh trial that's been ongoing.
	It's a pretty fascinating day so far.
	Greg Jarrett, Leo 2.0 Torello with us.
	So as we watch this thing unfold here, um, there seems to be a a divided as a Rasmussen poll that came out and it shows that people watching this trial are split right down the middle.
	Um thing that has frustrated me, Leo, is we have the January sixth Commission.
	They wouldn't allow Jim Jordan, Jim Banks on, they just put on two Trump haters, Liz Cheney and Adam Kinziger.
	Uh so that they've that that's a pre you know determined outcome.
	Why is there no commission investigating the 534 riots where dozens of Americans died, that thousands of police officers were pelted with bricks and rocks and bottles and Molotov cocktails, city blocks were taken over, looting galore, arson galore, a police precinct burned to the ground.
	Where's that commission, Leo?
	You won't find it because this is how the left hijacked the George Floyd case, where you, I, Greg, and everyone knew that was a a murder, a homicide, and they use that to excuse all the rioting last summer to to trump up charges against this young man to ignore the chaos.
	You know this.
	You can go on your montage of how Kamalas Harris bailed out uh criminals in Minneapolis, how they looked the other way, the starting to defunding the police, the lack of support.
	It's the reason why I left the Democratic Party because of the total chaos of just ignoring the criminal misconduct of all of 2020, and up until really Sean, until last week, when a lot of these Democratic cities said, you know what?
	Uh it was a mistake.
	We're making a mistake as to allowing this type of conduct.
	We need law and order.
	Well, fascinating case.
	We're going to show a lot of this on Hannity tonight, 9 Eastern on the Fox News Channel.
	Uh, thank you both for being with us.
	800-941 Sean, our number.
	You want to be a part of the program.
	We'll get to your calls coming up next, I promise.
	Hey there.
	I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
	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 SAS, 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, 25 down to the top of the hour.
	We got amazing and amazing Hannity tonight on Eastern on uh Fox.
	Uh a lot of drama in the courtroom in the Rittenhouse uh case today.
	Uh we'll play a lot of that for you.
	Uh and disastrous news on the economy.
	I somebody's got to report it.
	It's never been this bad.
	Biden's tax cuts could claim two-thirds of the income of people living in New York.
	That's how bad that is.
	The Biden White House claiming the massive government spending bill will reduce inflation.
	No, it won't.
	Because inflation just surged even higher this past month of October.
	We got the numbers today, a 31-year high.
	Consumer prices exploding to a 30-plus year high.
	I mean, who's getting hurt here the most?
	It is the poor and the middle class.
	Who did Democrats say, oh no, no, we're not going to tax you.
	The middle class, they'll be also paying the higher corporate taxes.
	They're already paying more to fill up their gas tank, heat and cool their homes, and they're paying more for every single thing they buy at every single store that they go to.
	And even if they're getting raises, it's not keeping up with this record inflation level of Joe Biden on top of the the Biden oil and gas tax, which basically is what it is, as he basically bows at the altar of these climate change extremists.
	All right, let's get to our busy phones.
	Uh let's say hi to Joe in Florida.
	Joe, how are you?
	Glad you called, sir.
	Thank you for taking my call.
	Many states are receiving flights in the middle of the night full of illegal aliens.
	Here in Florida, we've received about 70 of those flights.
	Do the governors have the authority to refuse these flights.
	It's a great question you have, and the the short answer is they really don't.
	And that's the whole problem with this.
	You know, if you or I, if we if we go out and we decide, well, we're going to obey these five laws, but we're going to ignore these other laws.
	Joe Biden is picking and choosing what laws he wants to enforce and the laws he doesn't want to enforce.
	Joe Biden not only is not enforcing the laws of the land as it relates to the borders, but he's aiding and abetting in the process.
	He's housing them in cages in the middle of a pandemic and then dispersing them all over the country.
	And this is why all these lawsuits have been springing up all over the place.
	Because if, for example, Governor Abbott of Texas, um, he has tried to get the courts to recognize that if the federal government doesn't do their job and uphold the law, that he then, as a state, this and a governor, should have the right to enforce the law.
	And now he's put in the position where he's got to spend three billion dollars of Texas taxpayer money to build the wall out in areas where there's a lot of illegal immigrant activity, and he's got to pay all this money for enforcement that the federal government should be doing.
	So the answer is it's way more complicated than that.
	Now, I don't, you know, of course, you know, it's just amazing.
	And then we catch, you know, Westchester Airport is not exactly LaGuardia or JFK in New York.
	Why did they pick Westchester Airport?
	Because they drop people at two o'clock in the morning, four o'clock in the morning.
	It's so that and they're doing it all around the country, um, in the dark of night to hide what they're doing.
	And they are dispersing these illegal immigrants without COVID tests, without vaccine mandates and preferential treatment all over the country.
	Now the states then become responsible for food and water and shelter and medical care and education for all of the illegal immigrants that Joe Biden is aiding and abetting in lawbreaking.
	Does it make any sense?
	No, it doesn't make any sense.
	The courts have not been particularly helpful in upholding the law of the land, something that Joe Biden pledged to do.
	And this is just one of many reasons why elections matter.
	This is why one year from now, Republicans better get back to House because that will stop this madness.
	We have the ability to stop it.
	And it's now going to be in the hands of the American people.
	But sadly, they don't have the courts have been unwilling to weigh in on a simple rule of law issue.
	The law is what it is.
	Now, if Joe Biden and the Democrats don't like the law, they can change the law.
	They've tried, I think now four or five different times to sneak in amnesty in the reconciliation bill that they've been working on that started at 3.5 trillion.
	I don't I don't even know if they're going to get any of this passed.
	But sadly, the answer to your question is it's way more complicated than just saying no, we're we're gonna send you back.
	It's unfortunate.
	Anyway, 800 941 Sean, if you want to join us.
	Um Brooke is in North Carolina.
	Hey, Brooke, how are you?
	Glad you called.
	Hi, Sean.
	Uh, thank you for being our our platform.
	Um, I can't thank you enough for being there.
	Um, thank you for giving it to me.
	Well, you're the best.
	Um, if you could be president, we do that for you.
	Um, we want to know um what we could do as Republicans, like to get him impeached.
	I mean, he's done way more things than Donald Trump had had done, and has not suffered any kind of any kind of uh yeah.
	No, no, no.
	Let me give you a quick answer, because the answer is it can't happen now because we wouldn't have the votes for it.
	If uh in order of priority, I would start with election integrity and confidence in elections, and those are the things that I've been listing that I mentioned to Ronald McDaniel earlier in the program, voter ID, signature verification, chain of custody controls, uh partisan observers, watching the vote count start to finish, updated voter rolls, uh, etc.
	That's the first thing.
	The if you like what happened in Virginia last week and you like what almost happened in New Jersey last week, and you and you do if everybody gets on board and does their part, if we all become spokes in a wheel, and we can need to kind of stay united in this, and we look for conservatives that are gonna keep their promises that run for office, then we'd have the ability to stop the bleeding, and you know, it's like a boat taking on water.
	You know, with every bad bit of economic news that we get from Joe Biden's economy, I mean, we get we gotta plug up the hole, and the hole is his bowing at the altar of New Green Deal socialism.
	But first you gotta win the election.
	So election integrity matters first.
	Make sure we enforce the laws of the land that didn't happen in 2020.
	And the next thing is that everybody's gotta get involved at a higher level.
	And I think we're even learning that school board meetings now matter.
	What you know, are are your kids being taught age appropriate material?
	Is CRT being taught in school?
	Are there draconian COVID measures in in school?
	Um and I know most people are busy because we work so hard to pay our bills, pay our taxes, and you know, get a little bit of rest time and go to a football game on the weekend, but everybody's gotta do a little bit more if that makes any sense.
	Of course it does.
	But with voter integrity here in North Carolina, my best friend um voted straight ticket Republican, and she went down and and she checked um her um she checked to see, you know, to see whether it was right or not, and then she looked and it said, all Democrats.
	So she went back and she did it all Republican again, and then um she went back and checked it and it said all Democrats.
	And then she went to someone, um, a poll worker, and they said, Well, you should just go to another um poll station.
	So voter integrity is I don't think I mean This has to happen on the state level.
	The laws are made by the states, and that means your state legislator, um assemblyman or senator, those are the people that would have to, you know, work on the look, I'm not looking for any advantage here.
	I just want fundamental integrity and fairness.
	After 2000, Florida made some dramatic changes to make sure and ensure that what happened in the year 2000 with hanging, swinging, dimpled, pimpled Chads, etc.
	wouldn't happen again.
	Then they ran into more problems in 2016 and they resolved those problems.
	We are a smart people.
	We have the ability to run elections with integrity that people will have confidence in the results in.
	And vo you know, I I love how Democrats want a vaccine passport for a kid to go to a restaurant that's five years old, but they they don't want uh voter ID uh you know they've they've tried to get rid of it because they think they're gonna get an advantage out of it.
	If you want to go to the Capitol, the White House or the Democratic National Convention, I know I've been to all of them, you're gonna need a uh a picture ID.
	Why wouldn't you require that simple item that you say that you are who you say you are to ensure integrity and confidence in elections?
	That's basic to me.
	Anyway, Brooke, hang in there.
	Um and and just remember, if everybody understands that every single one of you listening to my voice right now matters.
	All of us are like a spoke in a wheel.
	All if we look at it that way, and we need every spoke to make this wheel go around perfectly.
	And the next thing I would say is this mysterious reluctance and resistance that Republicans have had towards early voting, voting by mail, etc., it's people are going to have to overcome it.
	We cannot allow Democrats to have this massive advantage heading into election day, which they have developed they they've developed a system where they're getting their people out early.
	And they're, you know, but you can't also mail out ballots randomly to to people that didn't request them.
	It's gotta be requested.
	There's got to be a voter ID requirement for that as well.
	Iowa Don next, Sean Hannity Show.
	What's up, Don?
	Hi, Sean.
	Thank you very much for taking my call.
	I'm calling, sir.
	Today is the Marine Corps birthday, and I'm a Marine veteran and uh truck driver.
	So happy birthday, USMC.
	Well, Semprify marine and thanks for all you do for your country and all the service you've given the country thank you sir i i called about uh coincidentally the uh virginia election where uh which with some sears uh another marine veteran uh won the election and had the democrats scratching their head and not and making four statements about how they the reason they lost the gubernatorial and the lieutenant governor all the offices
	that they lost was because they didn't have enough socialism.
	They hadn't gotten enough bills passed, and I'm here to tell you, they got too many bills passed, and we're sick of them all.
	Well, look, if that's their interpretation, as far as I'm concerned, that's good because they couldn't be any more wrong.
	And, you know, to have a mid-30 approval rating as Joe Biden has and a 28% approval rating that Kamala has, it really is hard to get much worse than that.
	What they're missing though is look I'll give Bill Clinton credit.
	When Newt Gingrich wiped him out in the first midterm of Bill Clinton's presidency and he came back with okay we just got our ass handed to us we need to listen to the public and that's when he said the era of big government is over and the end of welfare as we know it.
	And both New Gingrich and Bill Clinton they did work together they didn't always get along but they worked together and they actually got this country to a balanced budget for a number of years.
	The country was better off because Clinton made an adjustment he realized that he was trying to take the country hard left it's not a center left country we are a center right country and the message of conservatism is it works.
	deeply that it now defines the entire party they are new green deal radical socialists.

▲