All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 13, 2022 - Sean Hannity Show
25:50
Trump Warrant - August 12th, Hour 2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is an iHeart podcast.
I'm Ben Ferguson.
And I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So down with Verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
We got you.
I'm Carol Markowitz.
And I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
We've been around the block in media and we're doing things differently.
Normally is about real conversations.
Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
Join us every Tuesday and Thursday, normally, on the iHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
What I told people I was making a podcast about Benghazi, nine times out of ten, they called me a masochist, rolled their eyes, or just asked, why?
Benghazi, the truth became a web of lies.
From Prologue Projects and Pushkin Industries, this is Fiasco, Benghazi.
What difference at this point does it make?
Listen to Fiasco, Benghazi, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Upholding the rule of law means applying the law evenly, without fear or favor.
Today we learned that last month our economy had 0% inflation.
Dr. Monica, get it right, Doc, Bertano, Bertano, Bertano, Bertano, Bertano, Bertano, Bertano, I.
I better get it right because I married Dominic Jacopa's daughter, so I got a problem.
Freedom is back in style.
Welcome to the revolution.
Yeah, we are coming to your center.
Going to play our guitars and sing you a controversial.
Sean Hennity, the new Sean Hannity Show.
More behind the scenes information on breaking news and more bold, inspired solutions for America.
This is a special edition of the Sean Hannity Show.
America Trapped Behind Enemy Lines.
Day number 363.
All right, hour to Sean Hannity's show.
Thanks for being with us, 800-941.
Sean, if you want to be a part of the program, so we have the entire warrant.
It is as I told you that it would be yesterday.
Basically, the premises, blah, blah, blah, blah, will be looked at, locations to be searched, the president's office, all storage rooms, other areas within the premises, the former president and his staff or other boxes where documents can be stored, including all structures, buildings, estate, blah, blah, blah.
You know, nothing big there in terms of the attachment, all physical documents, records constituting evidence, contraband, fruits of crime, or other illegally possessed in violation of 18 U.S.C. 793.
This is the Espionage Act 2071 and 1519, including the following.
And it goes on to explain them.
Now, it explains at the very top the very first page where Bruce Reinhart, the Obama donating, Trump-hating Jeffrey Epstein's friend's attorney, you know, signed off on this thing.
You know, he cited specifically 18 U.S.C. 2705.
I want to go through all these statutes.
That's the bottom line.
Anyway, so I brought on three of the best attorneys I know.
All right.
We have Valen Dershowitz, former Harvard law professor, Alina Haba, who is the counsel for President Trump, Leo 2.0 Terrell, who's been a civil rights attorney for four decades.
Thank you both for being all three of you for being with us.
Professor Dershowitz, first of all, if you look at the Espionage Act and its history, it is so long and so broad and so nonspecific in so many areas.
This could get very confusing very fast for everybody.
But with that said, I want to look at these specific codes that they're citing.
2705, for example, 793, gathering, transmitting, or losing defense information, delayed notice.
I mean, it all gets very technical very quickly.
And I wanted to get your take on where you think they're going with this.
Well, first of all, these same statutes could easily have been used against Hillary Clinton or against Sandy Berger, but they weren't.
And Attorney General Garland said that the essence of the Justice Department's approach is equality, even-handedness, et cetera, and using the least restrictive alternative if possible before you engage in searches.
And he just violated his own standards over and over and over again.
Look, under the broad wording of these statutes, you could get anybody for anything.
And a search warrant, remember the Fourth Amendment says the search warrant has to particularly describe the place to be searched.
That search warrant doesn't describe it with any particularity.
And of course, we won't know essentially what's involved until we see the affidavit.
And I'm glad that President Trump has waived privacy rights in the affidavit.
So now we'll see the affidavit.
We'll see what they're actually looking for.
But for me, the key is even-handedness.
The shoe on the other foot test has to be satisfied.
If Hillary Clinton and Berger, who are friends of mine, who I like, who I voted for, if they were not subject to this kind of investigation, you cannot have one rule for Republicans or one rule for Democrats.
Let me play James Comey when he talked about Hillary Clinton, acknowledging that crimes were committed, but saying no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute on these very same issues.
Listen.
Given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.
Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.
There is evidence.
Now, Professor, when you take it just an inch deeper and you look at exactly what we're talking about as it related to Hillary Clinton, very specifically, we know that in her case, that she had private emails, including seven email chains, which concern matters that were, quote, classified at the top secret special access program level, and they were sent and received.
And Comey, in that very same press conference, acknowledged that her emails were compromised by foreign intelligence services, meaning our enemies got a hold of them.
And these are the 33,000 emails that she deleted with BleachBit.
These are the devices that were destroyed with hammers and SIM cards removed from other devices.
Yeah, and you know what her answer is?
Her answer is to wear a cap that says, but her emails.
You know, that's a pretty damn good argument, but her emails.
When you live in a country under the equal protection of the laws, the but her emails argument is a good one.
Why do we have a different standard for this Republican than we did for two important Democrats?
And in the Sandy Berger case, again, he was my friend.
But there was no doubt that he had the intent to do wrong.
He put it in his sock, he put it in his underwear, and he did have to pay a fine.
By the way, Professor, he went into the National Archives.
He shoved documents down his pants.
He shoved documents down his socks.
He shoved documents down his backside.
And he walked out of there with those documents.
Now, if ever the Espionage Act would ever apply, it would be in that case.
And he got a slap on the wrist, as you know.
Yeah.
No, I agree with you.
Equal, you know, Garland spoke the right words, equal treatment, due process, presumption of innocence.
And then the Justice Department completely violated them with their actions.
But I think we all have to wait to see what's in the affidavit.
Maybe there's a smoking gun.
Maybe he actually shot somebody on Fifth Avenue, as he said.
He could get away with maybe there's a dead body in the safe.
Absent any of those things.
This should have been done by subpoena.
And the best proof, it should have been done by subpoena.
You know, they say that, oh, there may have been nuclear secrets.
Then why did you wait so many months?
Why were you negotiating?
Why didn't they immediately conduct a search or enforce the subpoena, which they couldn't try to enforce the subpoena?
I have, and maybe I should go to Alina Haba on this.
The National Archives Records Administration wrote the Trump team in Mar-a-Lago in February, thanking them for their cooperation.
That's number one.
But the important date to remember is June 3rd, because DOJ and FBI officials were at Mar-a-Lago, and they were shown every one of the boxes that they ended up taking earlier this week.
And the president, my understanding is from numerous witnesses that were there, actually went and saw them.
And they asked that a padlock be put on the door that was holding the records that they could have taken with them that day, but they didn't.
And the president complied with that.
And the words that were told to me over and over again, he said to them, you guys are welcome back anytime you want.
Anything you need, just let me know.
Is that true?
That's 100% true.
I have first-hand knowledge of that.
He was out on his golf course.
He knew they were coming.
Secret Service let them in.
It was a scheduled visit to see everything and look at the documents.
They could go in.
They went in.
There were agents on hand at Mar-a-Lago in June, as I've said.
And they walked out, looked at them and said, no problem.
Just secure it.
If you could just add, and they were already secure, by the way.
They said, secure it with an additional lock, please.
And we said, okay.
And they said, we'll let you know if we need anything further.
That's what they told the attorney who was on hand.
The president was charming and cordial, as he was always, as he was with NARA back in January 2022 when he first was coordinating with them and sent them documents that they had asked for.
There's a long history of cooperation.
It doesn't add up.
And then they tell us to add a lock.
All right.
And then that day, and I was with the president, the day of this, the day that this happened, they go break the lock that they had us add.
It makes no sense.
It was probably just optics.
I'm sure there's going to be a photograph, Sean, that will be exposed showing that they had to break two locks.
Yeah, well, you made us put the lock.
You know, it doesn't make sense.
I mean, that's the whole point of it.
And all of it was available.
And previously, what, 15 other boxes were handed over.
Do you have any knowledge if the president at any time ever spent down in the storage room looking through these boxes?
Because I think I know the guy pretty well.
And I think he probably would choose golf over looking through boxes.
Yeah, well, first of all, there's something really, that's 100%.
You and I both know him, Sean.
And he was on the golf course, not even concerned in the slightest the day that they came back in June because it's not, it has not been an issue.
It's been something that they've talked about, coordinated.
There is absolutely no reason for the five-alarm fire and the hysteria that they have created in this country other than the fact that midterm elections are coming and he's leading in the polls.
So, you know, it's just yet another attack.
Hillary Clinton, as Professor Dershowitz astutely brought out, Comey himself said that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such accusations because she destroyed, she had private email servers.
Talk about disseminating information.
Private email servers with classified information that could have been hacked, could have been emailed, could have been taken.
We want to talk about Russia.
They could have been coming in and taking it China.
This guy had boxes in Mar-a-Lago that he's let people go in and see whenever they requested, sent documents back, and was coordinating with.
It makes no sense.
Look, they want to disqualify him from running for president.
There's this hare-brained idea that Congress can add to the criteria for president.
To be president, you have to satisfy four criteria.
35 years old, born in America.
You didn't fight in the Civil War against the union.
Even I'm too old because it's not old enough for that.
And you haven't been impeached and convicted with the rider that you can't run against.
Beyond that, there's no basis.
Otherwise, Congress could pass a law today, a Democrat-controlled Congress signed by the president, pass a law saying Donald Trump can't run for president because anybody who's been impeached, even if acquitted, can't run for president.
Congress cannot change the Constitution, but they think they can.
They've been advised by hairbrained law professors, the same law professor, Lawrence Tribe, who urged his former student, Merrick Garland, to indict President Trump for attempting to murder Pence.
This is the kind of judgment that law professors have under this Trump derangement syndrome.
Anything that can get him, forget about the Constitution, forget about the Fourth Amendment, forget about civil liberties.
If you can get Trump, it's all worth it.
That's what's going on in the left.
That's why I, as a liberal Democrat who voted against Trump, I want to have the right to vote against him again in the next election.
And nobody should be denying me that right or your right to vote for him.
That's the key.
In America, you get to vote.
You don't have bureaucrats telling you who to vote for and who not to vote for.
Let me get Leo 2.0 in here, and we're going to keep all of you for the hour unless you have to run.
But Leo, let's get your take.
Oh, well, let me tell you right now, both the professor and ABBA have already mentioned the motivation.
The motivation, you're looking for a legal analysis for this.
There isn't one.
It's purely political.
Ever since he came down that escalator, it's been attacked Trump.
We can't get rid of him.
Let's discourage voters to vote for him.
They don't want him on the ballot.
That's the bottom line.
I would respectfully disagree with the professor on one aspect.
I do agree.
The affidavit's the key document.
Whether it'll be released, no, it'll be leaked out.
But that affidavit is the key document.
And one of the points, because I've handled a lot of these search warrants, the affidavit issues, Sean, is something where a lot of these subpoenas or affidavits and warrants are rubber stamped by the magistrate.
I'm going to be very curious to see if this magistrate challenged the investigating officer who submitted the affidavit and said, hey, look, are you sure about these facts?
Are you sure about these?
Or ask you the same questions we're asking here.
Because a lot of these magistrates, they rubber stamp them.
They basically just look at them, read them, sign off.
And that is the biggest concern.
You know what?
There's a process called the Franks hearing.
And if this affidavit doesn't come out voluntarily, the Trump team should pursue a Franks hearing and get an evidentiary hearing on the veracity of that affidavit.
That is the document.
I call that point easily correct.
That's absolutely correct.
We don't disagree at all.
Probably not.
Let me take a break, guys.
We'll come back more with Alina Haba, counsel for the president, Leo 2.0 Terrell, Professor Alan Dershowitz for the hour.
We'll get their legal opinion on the warrant released and what they took out of Mar-a-Lago, which, by the way, they had all access to in June and they could have taken it then.
And we're going to continue into the next half hour as well with our lineup of great attorneys analyzing this warrant against Donald Trump, Lena Haba, counsel for President Trump, and Professor Alan Dershowitz and Leo 2.0 Terrell.
Leo, we didn't give you enough time in the last segment.
We'll give it to you here.
So you think this is all political.
As you look at the different varying Espionage Act codes, 18 U.S. Code 1519, destruction, alteration, falsification, blah, blah, blah, or additional grounds for issuing a warrant or 2705 delayed notice, etc.
And yet they had access to all of this material two months earlier, and they asked that it just be locked up.
How do you make that leap two months later, less than two months later?
That's the issue.
You can't.
You cannot.
It's a pretext.
These charges are a pretext to justify the urgency.
Both the professor and Council Haba, they have both already laid it out.
You can't justify with the cooperation that was existing between the DOJ, FBI, and Trump.
We don't even know if Trump actually seen these documents.
He didn't box them up when he left the White House.
He probably had some QSA members do that.
So there are massive assumptions, but the investigating agent who prepared the declaration had to dramatize it.
And I'll be very interested to see if he summarized the cooperation in his declaration.
That's why that declaration is so critical.
We'll take a break.
We'll come back more with our panel of attorneys on the other side and your calls.
800-941-Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
Holding them accountable.
Sean gets the answers no one else does.
America deserves to know the truth about Congress.
All right, 25 to the top of the hour, 800-941-Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
Now we know, based on the warrant release, that the law that they're hanging their hat on to get the warrant was based on, quote, the Espionage Act.
It's a very broad 1917 originally enacted law that has many, many different varying subtitles to it.
They specifically mention sections 18 U.S.C. 3103A and B, 18 U.S.C. 2705, except for the delay of trial.
I'll explain all of this in just a second.
They mention 18 U.S.C. 793, which is the Espionage Act itself, 2071, 1519.
So those are the very specific details.
Now, if you look at 1519, that is, quote, the destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in the federal investigation.
If you look at 3103 AMB, additional grounds for issuing a warrant in general, in addition to the grounds for issuing a warrant, and this title, a warrant may be issued to search for and seize for any property that constitutes evidence of a criminal offense and violation of laws of the United States.
What that means is that that's their pretext.
That's exactly what I told you from the beginning.
By the way, none of this had anything to do with the National Archives or the Presidential Records Act, as they had claimed.
But this is the broad pretext under which they went in there.
Or 18 U.S. Code 2705, which is delayed notice, which is where a court order is sought, including an application or request, ordering delaying the notification required under Section 2703B for a title period not to exceed 90 days, et cetera, et cetera.
And then 18 U.S. C-793 gathering, transmitting, or losing defense information.
Okay, so maybe that's where they get their nuclear point on 18 U.S. Code 2071, concealment removal, mutilation generally.
Here's the problem.
We have a letter from the National Archives and Records Administration from February thanking the Trump people for all of their help and cooperation as they handed over every box that was requested.
And then, of course, we have the June meeting with the DOJ and the FBI officials at Mar-a-Lago.
And they had access to every single box that they ended up taking out earlier this week.
And they're the ones that decided not to take it.
They were free to take it.
And they only asked that the president put a padlock on that particular storage room where the boxes were being held.
I don't know why they felt the need to go through the pockets of Melania's clothes, but that's where it ended up.
Anyway, we continue with Professor Alan Dershowitz, by the way, who has a new book out.
It's called The Price of Principal.
By the way, he's experienced it.
God forbid he has a different opinion than some of his left-wing radical professor friends.
And anyway, it's a great book, Professor.
Congratulations.
Alina Haba is with us, counsel for President Trump.
And Leo 2.0 Terrell, 40 years civil rights attorney, is with us.
Alina, let's go through again that day.
And the timeline again becomes critical here.
And the timeline being that, number one, the National Archives and Records Administration admits cooperation.
The DOJ and the FBI, you know, they're the ones that asked for a padlock and decided not to take the documents that day that they were free to take.
So then one has to ask the question, what possibly could they be looking for?
Now, we'll find out eventually when we get the affidavit that Merrick Garland himself signed off on.
And I assume that it's some trumped up charge, no pun intended.
Let's think of it a different way, Sean, which I think makes even more sense.
We now know that what they were looking for was just documents.
You know, that's the way I think of it.
So now we know that it in fact was something as ridiculous as a document that any document that they have had access to for the last two years.
I mean, this is ridiculous.
Another thing is, you know, in these descriptions, and we haven't talked about it, but they have these vague descriptions, which is by, you know, it's intended to have vague descriptions because if they are in fact sensitive information, they shouldn't go into detail on it on the inventory list.
But you can see that there were two leather-bound books of photographs he had.
You know, the original Roger Stone clemency dots.
I mean, how is that something that needed to be taken?
He would have handed it over.
You know, Professor Dershowitz, I have now, you know, said something.
I've been probably one of the biggest law enforcement supporters my 35-plus years on radio and my 26-plus years on Fox.
But when we saw what happened when the FBI abused their power, I mentioned Peter Strzok and Lisa Page and their texting back in August of 2016.
You don't think he can become president, do you?
No, I don't think so.
I want to believe the path that you threw out for consideration in Andy's office that there's no way he gets elected.
But I'm afraid we can't take that risk.
It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40.
And then you look.
All right, we'll put maybe a little slight change of gears.
It's been such an intense week for a Friday.
Anyway, we'll get Adam Carolla's take on all of this and the insanity of the world that we live in on every front basically imaginable.
Dr. Ben Carson also checks in with us this hour and we'll get to your phone calls 800-941 Sean.
A great Hannity tonight, 9 Eastern.
You don't want to miss.
I promise we've got it all laid out for you.
I'm Ben Ferguson.
And I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So down with Verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
We got you.
I'm Carol Markowitz.
And I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
We've been around the block in media and we're doing things differently.
Normally is about real conversations.
Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
Join us every Tuesday and Thursday, normally, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
When I told people I was making a podcast about Benghazi, nine times out of ten, they called me a masochist, rolled their eyes, or just asked, why?
Benghazi, the truth became a web of lies.
From Prologue Projects and Pushkin Industries, this is Fiasco, Benghazi.
What difference at this point does it make?
▲
Export Selection