All Episodes
Previous Next
March 31, 2023 - Sean Hannity Show
33:15
Defending Trump - March 31st, Hour 2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is an iHeart Podcast.
All right, hour two, Sean Hannity Show, toll-free, 800-941.
Sean, if you want to be a part of the program on this Friday, live Hannity tonight, 9 Eastern.
We've got a great lineup for you.
Tell you about that in a minute, including our next guest, the attorney in this case against Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan District Attorney.
We have Joe Takapina back with us, President Trump's attorney.
Sir, how are you?
Sean, I'm good.
A little tired, but I'm good.
You know, just beginning the fight.
And, you know, it's been a long, long 24 hours, let's put it that way.
Look, I've known you a long time.
You are an incredible lawyer.
You're a great litigator.
You've done over 100 jury trials, if I'm not mistaken, in New York.
You've won them, even cases that people thought were impossible.
First, let me get to the details of where you are with the DA's office.
There were reports in the Politico and elsewhere that Alvin Bragg wanted to arrest Donald Trump today, but you guys said absolutely not.
And you have to work things out with the Secret Service as this is unprecedented territory.
This has never happened before.
Yeah, exactly.
I mean, I think they were initially looking for surrender today.
I mean, you know, he's 5.30.
We found out about this last night.
He lives in Florida.
The Secret Service is involved.
So, you know, that just wasn't happening.
We're working it out right now.
Suze Nicholas is speaking with them.
And I think we're talking about a possibility of doing this on Tuesday afternoon, Sean.
What we're hearing is Tuesday at about 2.15.
Just to make sure, will you get into the nitty-gritty, the details of exactly what will happen that day?
For example, there's going to be an arraignment.
There's going to be a mug shot.
There's going to be fingerprinting.
Are they going to put handcuffs on the former president?
Is there going to be a perp walk of the former president?
No, my understanding is there'll be no handcuffs at all here.
I mean, this is already going to be something that none of us have ever seen in our lifetimes.
And I don't think that that's where we're going here as far as a perp work.
You know, he's not a perp, and so we shouldn't have a perp walk.
But, you know, will they seek to put on some dog and pony show and display?
Of course they will.
I mean, you know, that's part of the reason we're here.
But listen, you know, it's powerful, of course.
Everything that's been done in this case so far is based on, you know, representation of the justice system, you know, seeking to derail a political opponent, seeking to influence the election.
So, you know, whatever they do, nothing would surprise me at this point, John.
Nothing at all.
Have we figured out what the 34 number means yet?
We haven't.
I mean, again, you know, it's frustrating that we learn about this case sometimes with the status of it or the number of cows.
From the New York Times.
From the Times.
The Times is basically giving us the information.
So, you know, they have not told us yet.
They won't tell us until the indictment is unsealed.
But I don't think it's going to be anything too shocking or surprising, but we have to wait and see.
I mean, I think it's all going to be based around the interaction with this confidentiality agreement with Stormy Daniels.
And maybe Karen McDougal, or you don't know.
I don't know, Sean.
I mean, again, it would be just.
Right, because there are really interesting pieces of evidence as it goes into this case, and we've gone over them in detail.
We had the Michael Cohn's lawyer's letter from 2018, which is completely exculpatory.
In a private transaction 2016, before the U.S. presidential election, Mr. Cohn used his own personal funds to facilitate a payment of $130,000 to Ms. Stephanie Clifford.
Either the Trump organization or the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction of Ms. Clifford.
And we have Michael Cohn saying pretty much exactly the same thing.
And then just to add more evidence, we have Stormy Daniels' signature on a January 30th, 2018 piece of paper signing her own words that, quote, I am not denying this affair because I was paid hush money.
I'm denying this affair because it never happened.
So where's the crime here?
Well, you know, just think about what you just said, Sean.
You just framed the issues.
Their entire case is built upon people who are going to say, I've been a liar.
I've been a liar throughout this entire episode.
I've been a liar before.
I was a liar.
But ladies and gentlemen, the jury, you should believe me now.
I mean, Michael Cohen has a pathological need for media attention and is a pathological liar.
He's been convicted of a slew of federal criminal charges, not just having to do with this, but lying to Congress, lying to the bank regarding his tax medallion scheme that he had there, tax evasion lied to the IRS.
It just goes on and on and on.
And he's, as recently, Sean, as yesterday, the day before, he's literally on CNN, because now he's a star.
And he goes on CNN and says that when he pled guilty to all these things, he really was just forced to plead guilty to protect his wife or his family.
And in fact, he wasn't really guilty of this thing.
So that's him disavowing responsibility.
Someone who's supposed to turn a corner and now be a truth teller is now saying, well, when I pled guilty, I perjured myself because I wasn't really guilty.
That's who they are building their case on.
He is constitutionally incapable of telling the same story twice.
And that's going to really be a problem for him if he ever has to get up on a witness stand in this case.
It's shocking.
And more importantly, Sean, let's assume for a minute lightning struck and everything Michael Cohen said was true and everything Storm Daniel said was true.
Do you understand this?
There's still no crime because there's no federal election law campaign violation at all, at all.
Let me ask you about grounds to dismiss that you would likely bring up.
I'm not asking for your specific legal strategy here, but I would imagine there's going to be a number of motions to dismiss.
I would imagine there's going to be a motion to have a change of venue.
I would imagine that you will argue that the statute of limitations has long since passed.
I would imagine you will argue that it is based on this novel, faulty legal theory that has never been used before and that a mere misrepresentation on a government document is by itself criminal, that recording a payment of hush money is a legal expense.
Apparently that didn't even happen according to my sources, and that it becomes a felony only because the purpose may have been to violate federal, not state, campaign statutes.
And remember, on the federal level, they passed on this case.
I would imagine you'd argue that the charges, you would seek a dismissal based upon the argument of prosecutorial misconduct and especially selective prosecution.
You got it.
You got it.
Tell me what you're, where are you going with this?
You seem to have gone to law school.
I mean, you just hit basically what we think will be most of our initial motions.
Look, to be a prudent lawyer, it's hard to say what we're going to be filing until we see the indictment.
We have to see the indictment, but I can't imagine everything you just listed not being part of the arsenal of legal attacks we're going to be making on this politically motivated case.
There's nothing more.
I mean, this is, look, again, this stuff scares me, to be quite honest with you.
You know, the rule of law is now endangered, and quite frankly, they died.
And all Americans, I don't care how politically inclined to the left or the right you are, all Americans should be concerned because today is Donald Trump.
You know, tomorrow it's a Democrat.
The day after tomorrow, you know, it's your brother.
It's your sister.
It's your niece or your nephew.
And it's starting to get scary when we can decide that we have someone we don't like, as Mark Palmer had said in his book, we don't like, we're going to find something.
And they scoured, scoured for three years.
They scoured all of his personal and professional records to find something.
And this is what they came up with.
Something that does not even equal a crime.
According to federal election officials and experts, I don't know what they think they're going to do here.
But what he's hoping for is, look, he indicted President Trump.
So congratulations.
You're the first to indict a former president.
He appeased his financial backers.
Alvin Bragg, great, terrific.
Congratulations.
Now he's going to hope that he gets some judge who's intellectually dishonest, a jury who is so blue that they can't see anything that Donald Trump is doing and they don't want to, you know, regardless of the law and the facts, they'll still vote to convict.
And then, you know, ultimately, an appellate court would say, ah, you know what?
It's Donald Trump.
Forget it.
Forget the law.
Forget the facts.
Forget the rule of law.
That's what this is all.
This is how this has to be playing out in their minds.
And it is a grave error.
Well, let me ask you this, because you've tried cases in New York City courtrooms.
Yes, sir.
My question is, and Donald Trump said this himself.
He warned that he can't get a fair trial in New York after an indictment on these charges.
Alvin Bragg ran to go after one man, Donald Trump, one organization, the Trump organization, and one family, the Trump family.
I would say off at the top of my head, you know, Democrats, liberals outnumbering conservatives, Republicans nine to one, that the odds are not in your favor that you're going to get a fair trial in New York City.
Can you get a change of venue?
Will that happen?
Look, obviously, we'll consider that.
We have to consider a change of venue, but a change of venue has to be based on, you know, sort of legal principles that are found and facts that are found and things that not just because, oh.
Would it matter that Alvin Bragg ran as a candidate campaigning on the issue that he's going to go after Donald Trump?
I would say that would be an inherent bias on his part.
And that has to do with the prosecution and prosecutorial misconduct.
Look, here's the thing.
I understand why people would be concerned, really be concerned about New York jurors being fair to Donald Trump.
You know, I've tried, as you said, over 100 jury trials, and I happen to have confidence in New York jurors to do the right thing.
And I believe that people, all decent people, whether politically opposed to Donald Trump or supportive of Donald Trump, will be outraged by weaponization of a prosecutor's office.
This is not a crime.
The facts and the laws don't add up to a crime.
And I think people are going to start saying, Jesus, you know, I don't like this guy.
I'm not going to vote for him as president, but I'm not also going to let this country become, you know, what we used to look back on from the former Soviet Union, communist China, even Nazi Germany to the point where, you know, we're just going to target people we don't like and to hell with the rule of law and to hell with the facts.
I just want to go after this guy.
I think New York jurors are savvy and gritty.
And I still have hope.
Look, we have to challenge everything that we can because we don't want to be in a situation where he can't get a fair trial.
But I also believe that this is so outrageous and so obvious that a New York jury is going to, if we're before a New York jury, no matter where in New York, that they'll be able to see through this and call it what it is.
I hope you're right.
I would actually even hope even more that you might get a change in venue.
Maybe upstate New York, maybe Long Island, anywhere, I think would be more fair than New York City and all of this.
Quick break, right back more with President Trump's attorney, Joe Takapina.
Then we'll get to Don Jr.
and Hannity at nine tonight as we continue.
All right, we continue with President Trump's attorney, Joe Takapina, is with us.
You've talked to the president.
You've talked to his family.
I've talked to some of the family members.
How's the president handling this?
He's tough.
I mean, he's a tough guy.
You know, first it was a bit of shock and really disbelief because we just, you know, despite all the rumors and scuttlebutt and New York Times reporting, there just was still the hope that somehow justice and rule of law would prevail.
That there's no way you could make this a crime when it's not a crime.
Everyone has said it.
Everyone from the left and the right who understands this said it's not a crime.
So he's holding up as well as to be expected.
But like I said, he's a tough guy.
And he's someone who now is in fighting mode.
And so now we're rounding up the troops and we're going to be constantly having meetings about how we attack this.
As soon as we get that indictment, or as soon as the New York Times lets us know what's in the indictment, we'll be ready to plan our course of attack.
But he's holding up, Sean.
And look, it's not a coincidence that his poll numbers have seemed to have risen during this targeted prosecution, right?
I mean, it seems like people, what this has done for a lot of his supporters has basically confirmed his position that he's being targeted.
The weaponization of the system is being employed against a political opponent.
And that is not what we want in this country.
I mean, here's the question.
Does anyone actually believe, Sean, that if someone else were accused of paying hush money to avoid a sex scandal in the press in the manner that Donald Trump is suspected of doing, they would be prosecuted?
Never happened before in this country's history.
I don't know if it's ever going to happen again.
I don't know if you saw James Comey's tweet.
Oh, it's been a good day.
Now, this is a guy that could not verify because the FBI in early of 2016 went and sent his agents over to meet Christopher Steele with a million-dollar offer.
If he could corroborate the dossier, he could not.
As Andrew McCabe said, without the dossier, they never would have got the FISA warrant approved.
But James Comey signed that FISA warrant at the top of the FISA warrant.
It says verified.
He signed three of the four warrants, and he's telling us that's a good day.
If Donald Trump lied to a judge like that, would he be prosecuted?
Look, how about this?
Let's say Donald Trump, you know, the whole premise of this case is that this was a campaign donation, and therefore it was required that he make a filing with the FEC.
That is not the case.
The FEC has already said that.
But let's now assume that Donald Trump subscribed or his advisors subscribed to the ridiculous notion.
This was somehow exclusively done for the campaign, not for his personal life, but the campaign only to set the standard.
And he paid with campaign funds as he would be able to do.
They would be baying for his scalp right now, Sean, with campaign funds.
He did everything the right way.
This is not John Edwards who had some donor dish out a million dollars for him to hide his.
By the way, John Edwards was found innocent.
Found innocent and then hung.
And then the Justice Department decided we're going to dismiss the case.
Yeah, I think Emmett Flood was his lawyer at the time.
I know he's a colleague of yours and a friend of yours.
Smart lawyer like you are.
All right, we'll have the updates tonight.
Joe Takapina, the president's lawyer, will join us.
Laura Trump's joining us.
We've got a great lineup, 9 Eastern.
Joe, thank you for being so generous with your time and updating this great audience of ours.
Absolutely, Sean, anytime you need it.
Appreciate it.
800-941, Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
We'll get to your calls coming up straight ahead.
And Donald Trump Jr.
weighs in as we continue.
You know, I love this company, LegacyBox.com.
Right now, if you can, I want you to go to legacybox.com/slash Hannity, and they have a special offer today.
Find all of those home videos, all of the photos of your family that rarely see the light of day.
Now, these irreplaceable heirlooms are not only crowding your shelves this spring when you're cleaning up, but they're also rapidly fading away.
And all you do is you pack it in your legacy box, and they will hand-digitize all of these family memories for generations to come.
You know, I mentioned how my grandparents are from Ireland.
I'm lucky I have a picture of my grandfather, but I don't have a picture of other grandparents.
I wish I did.
For a limited time, Legacy Box is running a $9 videotape sale.
That's 65% off.
And at this price, there's never been a better time to convert your entire collection.
Go to their website, legacybox.com/slash Hannity for their $9 tape sale.
That's legacybox.com/slash Hannity to unlock your order.
Continuing to build the foundation for conservative victory.
Victory.
Now, back to the Sean Hannity Show.
Hi, 25.
Now, to the top of the hour.
Thank you for being with us.
800-941 Sean, if you want to be a part of the program, our legal panel with Greg Jarrett, David Schoen will join us in just a minute.
At the top of the next hour, we'll check in with Donald Trump Jr.
He will join us.
Let me go back and let's get a little timeline here of how things have evolved with Donald Trump and this Manhattan District Attorney, Alvin Bragg.
Now, let's play Alvin Bragg, the candidate, promising to investigate Trump as a Manhattan DA candidate.
He's not in office, but again, I keep making the point, and this is crucial because if you want to live in a constitutional republic and not shred that document, if you want equal justice under the law, if you want equal application of our laws,
if you don't want a dual justice system, if you don't want to criminalize political differences, when people run on going after one person, one family, one organization, and then follow through on that promise, we've got a massive problem in this country in terms of the rule of law.
So this is candidate Alvin Bragg.
A lot of people are wondering: whoever has this job, are they going to convict Donald Trump?
Look, that is the number one issue.
I'm the candidate in the race who has the experience with Donald Trump.
I was the chief deputy in the attorney general's office.
We sued the Trump administration over 100 times.
It'd be hard to argue with the fact that that'd be the most important, most high-profile case.
And I've seen him up front and seen the lawlessness that he can do.
And you believe it should happen.
I believe we have to hold him accountable.
Do you believe it?
Bragging, I've gone after the Trump organization over 100 times.
What?
This is insane.
That's not the America I know.
That's not the constitutional republic we all love.
Now, we had three big bombshells last week, which turned this case upside down and sideways.
One was the grand jury did get to hear from Robert Costello.
But remember, in the case of a grand jury, and a lot of people don't know this.
I'm not trying to be insulting by telling people this, is that no honorable DA would ever bring these charges, or no honorable DA would run on going after one human being.
But a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich.
You got to keep in mind that a grand jury, the defense does not get any opportunity at all whatsoever to present any evidence to present their case that would contradict what a DA, especially a politically motivated DA, is putting before the grand jury.
Now, that means that's where the statement you can indict a ham sandwich comes from.
Now, the defense doesn't get the chance to do that.
They don't present anything to the grand jury.
With that said, Robert Costello comes on this program and explains, and I think this is critical to this case, that, and he was a legal advisor, and he got a waiver from Michael Cohn that he could speak.
And he said that Michael Cohn was distraught and suicidal and was talking about jumping off, you know, the top of a building.
And that Michael Cohn, you know, he kept asking Michael, do you have anything on Trump?
Anything on Trump?
That's the only way that we can prevent you from going to jail.
No, no, no, no, no.
And then goes on a rant about how I'm not going to jail under any circumstances.
And he interpreted that to be he'll lie, cheat, steal, do whatever he has to do to prevent himself from going to jail.
Listen.
Michael Cohn, who, as I said before, was pacing back and forth, would suddenly stop in the middle of whatever he was talking about and turn and point his finger at us and say, I want you guys to understand, I will do whatever the F I have to do.
I will never spend a day in jail.
He said that at least 10 to 20 times during that two-hour period.
It was a bizarre mantra, but it made it clear to us that Michael Cohn was saying, I will lie, cheat, steal, shoot someone.
I will never spend a day in jail.
Then there was the February 2018 letter that was so exculpatory in terms of the Trump campaign.
And I've read that letter now many times on the program.
Michael Cohn even echoed the remarks in that letter in a private transaction in 2016, before the U.S. presidential election, Mr. Cohn used his own personal funds to facilitate a payment of $130,000 to Ms. Stephanie Clifford.
Neither the Trump organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford.
And then, of course, it showed up, Washington Post, TMZ, other outlets.
You know, this is Stormy Daniels denying January 30th, 2018, for example.
I am not denying this affair because I was paid hush money.
I am denying this affair because it never happened.
And her signature is on the paper.
So anyway, those big three things from last week, but here we are, 34 counts joining us now, Greg Jarrett and David Schoen.
Welcome back, both of you, to the program.
Good to be here.
All right.
And by the way, Greg has a new book coming out soon called Trial of the Century.
David Schoen, you should be writing more books.
And then I promote yours.
You know, Greg, you have focused in great specificity and detail on the indictment resting on this bizarre legal theory and the flaws of this theory.
Yeah, you know, it just doesn't make sense.
It's not just novel.
It's bizarre.
Intertwining offenses.
I just don't see that this can withstand judicial scrutiny, assuming the judge who presides is objective and neutral.
And of course, as you pointed out, Sean, that's a big assumption because the judges in New York are notoriously liberal.
In a perfect honest world, this would never get to a jury.
You know, the DA accuses Trump of falsifying business records in the accounting of this payment to Stormy Daniels.
And then he's taking that, which is a misdemeanor, and he's coupling it with a purported campaign finance violation, according to leaks from his office.
And he tries to elevate it to a felony.
The law doesn't let him do that.
That's a manipulation of the law.
And I just don't see how he gets there.
Beyond that, of course, there's the statute of limitations which would bar his bringing a prosecution.
And the exceptions to those statute limitations don't apply.
Let's get your thoughts on the very same topic, David.
Yeah, well, I mean, Greg's right on.
But, you know, when he says it's a bizarre charge, another planet, and so on, it's never been done before.
I mean, that's how bizarre it is.
Let me tell you what Mr. Comey said when he was considering whether to bring charges against Hillary Clinton.
Wait, the same Mr. Comey that told Lindsey Graham, knowing what I know now, I never would have signed the FISA applications.
And meanwhile, he knew then what he knew at the time that he was being interrogated, that guy?
Same, Mr. Comey.
And here's what he said about Hillary Clinton.
No reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.
Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges.
There are obvious considerations like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent.
And then he said, responsible decisions also consider the context of a person's actions and how similar situations have been handled in the past.
It's remarkable that they've never used this combination of laws before, and they want to try it out on a president of the United States.
The statute of limitation is another very interesting question.
It was upheld, this idea that you exclude the days that a person is continuously outside the state, was upheld in a 1999 case called People v.
Noble.
And what they emphasized in the case was that it's meant to apply specifically here.
The focus of the tolling provision of this statute 30.10 is, quote, the difficulty of apprehending a defendant who is outside the state.
Was there any difficulty in finding out where Donald Trump was every minute of every day?
Absolutely not.
They indicted him when he's outside the state.
I went through in the first hour of the program, touched on it with Joe Takapina, the president's attorney, what will happen Tuesday at 2.15, what this means for Donald Trump, you know, the charges, what follows the indictment.
Will they perp walk him?
Will they be in handcuffs?
There'll be a mugshot.
We know that.
There'll be fingerprinting.
We know that.
Will there be bail or will they try to silence Donald Trump, which they have done in previous cases?
Roger Stone, case in point.
Paul Manafort, case in point number two, Greg Jarrett.
What is going to happen next Tuesday?
Well, I think there'll be a process.
The Secret Service will make sure that the president is properly protected.
The usual filling out forms, background information, fingerprinting, and so forth.
Yeah, they'll probably be a mugshot.
If I were Trump, I'd smile because that mugshot's going to be all over the place.
But, you know, I would.
By the way, you know what Pete Hag said last night?
And I think he's right.
Those mugshots are going to be on t-shirts and hats.
I mean, I ought to go into the business, and we'll all be able to retire, you know, much earlier.
You said something really important, Sean, and that is that this is a guy, Alvin Bragg, who ran on the promise that he was going to get Trump.
Under the code of conduct that governs prosecutors in New York, he is duty-bound to be fair and impartial.
And the code says he has to refrain from methods calculated to produce prejudice.
His decisions cannot be driven by political bias.
He has to be neutral beyond question such that the appearance of a conflict of interest is grounds for disqualification.
So he seems to have forgotten one of those sacred canons of professional ethics.
The primary duty of a prosecutor is not to convince, convict, but to see that justice is done.
And then the American Bar Association's ethical standard reads, when deciding whether to initiate or continue an investigation, prosecutors should not be influenced by partisan or other improper political considerations.
No personal animus toward a potential subject.
He has expressed, you played the cliffs, he has expressed his personal animus and has promised to get Trump.
He has breached not only the Bar Association standards, but also New York standards that govern prosecutors.
All right, quick break.
Right back.
We'll continue more with attorneys, Greg Jarrett and David Schoen on the other side.
Then we'll get to your calls.
And Don Jr.
will be joining us as well as we continue.
Sean, our number, if you want to be a part of the program.
Let me ask both of you this question.
What motions would you make?
For example, a motion to dismiss.
I would go after Alvin Bragg having prejudged this case based on comments that he's made.
Change of venue.
David, I'll ask you first, then Greg, I'll ask you.
Well, I'll tell you this.
I mean, again, you don't have a great choice of judges in this court, but the reports have been so far that this case is going to be assigned to Judge Merchant.
I've been in front of him.
If it gets assigned to Judge Merchand, there should be an immediate motion to recuse because then they're playing games.
Merchand was assigned to the Trump organization case, to the Bannon case, and now to this.
They have a historic practice in this office, VA's office, Manhattan, the only office in the state that does it, where they pick a judge to oversee the grand jury process, and they pick the judge because that judge then stays on the case for the duration.
It was challenged in state court, and the challenger is lost.
But in federal court, they've suggested this could be a real problem.
And in this case, Merchant would have been hand-picked.
You deserve to have the case go into the wheel.
He's a Trump hater all the way through.
That's not good.
So if you're Joe Takapina, Greg Jarrett, what are you focusing on?
What motions would you be putting forth?
Well, I would file a motion to dismiss, arguing that the case is not supported by the law and that the alleged facts do not amount to a crime.
And as I said, you know, he doesn't have jurisdiction to pursue a federal campaign finance violation.
He is a local prosecutor.
He is restricted to charging under state law.
So to bootstrap a federal law for the purpose of elevating a dubious misdemeanor into a felony is just not permitted by the law.
That's an errant manipulation.
I want to add one more thing, if I may, really quickly.
You know, President Trump had every right to resist extradition in this case.
And Florida has a very interesting extradition statute.
Under 941.04, the governor has a right and duty to investigate the case.
Now, he can't just, you know, say no to the extradition request because he thinks maybe he's not guilty.
But in this case, he had the right to investigate it.
That means make them produce some evidence, make them prove it wasn't a scam.
It would be a great opportunity for the defense to see their hand and for Governor DeSantis to really evaluate it.
He has said he would not cooperate with it.
So ordinarily, extradition is a slam dunk.
And maybe politically, it makes no sense maybe for him to resist it.
But it would be within his rights 100% to at least make them prove their case for the extradition purposes to the governor's satisfaction.
You know, I got to tell you, I think there are a number of grounds that they're likely to engage in.
You know, they'll say it's based on the faulty legal theory that you were referring to, Greg Jarrett.
You too, David.
Uh, Trump's lawyers will argue that the charges are barred by statute of limitations.
Uh, his lawyers will seek a dismissal based upon the argument of prosecutorial misconduct and selective prosecution.
I think they will all be powerful arguments, but uh, I gotta run, I gotta say thank you to uh both of you for being with us.
We really appreciate your time.
David Schoen, Greg Jarrett, thank you both.
Thank you very much.
All right, 800-941 Sean.
If you want to be a part of the program, quick break right back this Friday, Hannity Tonight Live on the Fox News channel.
Uh, we've got a great lineup.
Joe Takapina will check in with Laura Trump, and we got so much going on tonight.
Nine Eastern, set your DVR, a busy Friday news night, and uh, quick break right back.
You know, a cyber thief could steal the equity in your home without you even knowing.
Now, it's a financially devastating scam, it's called home title theft.
Now, cyber thieves hunt for the title of your home online, then they'll forge your signature on a transfer document stating that you sold them your home when you didn't.
Then they'll take out loans on your home with your equity or they'll sell it to an unsuspecting buyer.
And by the way, they're gone, your money's gone also.
Your home is not in your name anymore, and now you're hiring attorneys to try and save your home.
I protect my home, my equity with home title lock.
You should too.
Home title lock, they put a virtual shield around your home's title.
Now, that's the instant they detect activity or tampering around your home's title.
They help shut it down and shut it down fast.
First things first, get a free title scan with signup to verify your home is safely in your name.
Then mention my name, Sean, and you get 30 days of protection at home titlelock.com.
That's home title lock.com.
▲
Export Selection