All Episodes
Previous Next
May 26, 2023 - Sean Hannity Show
32:20
2024 GOP Primary Race - May 25th, Hour 2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is an iHeart Podcast.
That's an individual of Mr. Allen.
Mr. Chairman, these individuals have been determined these are not to be whistleblowers.
These are not whistleblowers.
They've been determined by the agency not to be whistleblowers.
I'm proud of the progress my administration has made.
We've reduced the deficit in the first two years by $1.7 trillion in the first two years.
I wish we could have just a normal human being as president.
That's what I want to do.
Freedom is back in style.
Welcome to the revolution.
Yeah, we're coming to your city.
Gonna play our guitars and sing you a come to song.
Sean Hannity.
To the new Sean Hannity Show.
More behind the scenes information on breaking news and more bold-inspired solutions for America.
And welcome to the Sean Hannity Show.
I'm Greg Jarrett, filling in for Sean.
Back now for my second hour.
As I mentioned earlier, you can follow me on Twitter at Greg Jarrett.
You can read my legal columns and other articles on my website, thegregjarrett.com, and listen to my podcast, The Brief.
As I mentioned earlier, I do have a new book coming out in just a few days.
It's called Trial of the Century about a pivotal moment in America where our cherished free speech rights were hanging in the balance.
America stood at the precipice.
And you can get that book by going to my website, thegregjarrett.com/slash book.
You can click on there and order the book, or you can just go to amazon.com, barnsandnoble.com, the usual places, or wait until Tuesday when the book comes out.
All right.
Big news this week.
Lots of different topics, but politically or electorally, we now have Ron DeSantis, who has jumped into the presidential sweepstakes on the Republican side, joining Tim Scott, Nikki Haley, Vivek, Ramaswamy, and of course, Donald Trump.
Depending upon the poll you're looking at, Trump appears to be substantially ahead, which is why my guest now joins me, John McLaughlin.
Our listeners know John.
He's the head of McLaughlin Associates, a premier polling group in America.
And John, great to have you back.
Thank you.
It's great to be here.
And congratulations on the new book.
I look forward as I'm diving into the first chapter.
I look forward to finish reading it.
Do you like it so far?
Yes.
And for those of us who advocate free speech and balance, it's a great thing.
So anyway, but congratulations on that.
Thank you.
So let's talk about some of the polling data here.
Now, you still poll for the Trump campaign, right?
Right, right.
Which is why I want your book to outsell Ron DeSantis' book.
Well, get out there and start selling, John.
So here's the thing.
Now that Ron DeSantis has jumped into the race officially, does that automatically boost his poll numbers?
No, because it's a, I mean, ever since Election Day last year, he's been running.
And this is not a surprise to anyone.
And he's been on a national book tour.
He's been giving speeches.
He's visited the early swing states.
He's positioned his legislative agenda in, you know, in Florida to position that he could be a good governor and he wants to do for America what he's done for Florida.
And in the process, I mean, granted, you know, full disclosure, I work for President Trump.
And we published a national poll.
And in January, it was close.
I mean, where Trump was leading a multi-candidate field in the primary, 43%, DeSantis, 31, Pence at five, everybody else, single digits.
And one-on-one against Ron DeSantis, Trump was leading 52 to 40.
But then Donald Trump, a lot of people weren't sure he was running.
And all of a sudden, he's out there and he's going to the early states.
He went to North New Hampshire, went to South Carolina.
He went to East Palestine when nobody cared, when Joe Biden didn't show up.
He was out there taking care of the working men and women of America.
And so he's been out there campaigning.
And guess what?
Biden Bragg decides to indict him and they indict him and his poll numbers go up.
Right.
This is the New York Manhattan district attorney who brought this rather absurd indictment against Trump that fails to even state an underlying crime, probably because none actually exists in the law.
It seems to me that people see this for what it is.
What effect did that indictment itself have on Trump's poll numbers?
Right.
And that's what I was getting at right now, where Donald Trump in the multi-candidate field in our last national poll, which we put out at the beginning of the month, Trump was leading 52% of the vote.
So he's gone up significantly.
DeSantis' vote was cut in half to 16.
And then you had Mike Pence at six, and you had Vivek Ramaswamy at four and Nikki Haley at four.
And one-on-one against DeSantis, Trump was leading now 67 to 26.
He's getting two-thirds of the National Republican Party.
So it's going up.
Yes.
And in Iowa, we did a survey that the Trump campaign put out where in Iowa, among likely caucus goers, Trump was leading 54 to 20.
So you have this situation where, you know, DeSantis was coming in saying, oh, Trump can't win again, and I can win.
Well, the national polls, ever since Biden surrendered Afghanistan, Trump's been leading in the national polls.
A thousand likely voters.
We have Trump beating Joe Biden 47 to 43.
We never saw that in 2016 for Trump.
We never saw it in 2020.
Both those races were races where we were losing the national popular vote, but playing to win the Battleground states.
Now, in 2016, we won the Battleground States by 78,000 votes in three states.
44,000 in Pennsylvania, 22,000 in Wisconsin, 10,000 in Michigan.
Got an electoral majority.
In 2020, out of the 160 million votes cast, we lost Wisconsin by 20,000 votes.
We lost Arizona by 11,000 votes in Georgia by like 10,000 votes.
So it was 44,000 votes roughly.
Now, we're leading in the national popular vote, not just my polls, but in the real clear politics average of media polls that we're often contesting.
They've got Trump leading Biden by a point and a half.
And you've got polls there like the Washington Post, ABC, Trump up seven over Biden.
You've got Raspbos and reports, Trump over seven, up seven over Biden.
Over Biden.
Over Biden.
Harvard Harris, which is conducted by Mark Penn, Hillary Clinton's pollster, Trump's leading by six points among registered voters, seven points.
And so, so, and the economist you gov, they've got us up too.
So the premise for DeSantis running that I can win and I can be Trump without being Trump and I can win when he can't, that's not true.
And there's some fake polls that the Never Trumpers were putting out, but some of the DeSantis people, they were either skewed or they never put out the top line or the methodology or the question, there's no transparency.
Because I'm sure there's people at the DeSantis Super PAC who are waiting for the bank wires to come in with $100 million so they can spend that.
But Donald Trump, you know, since January has been on fire in the polls.
And if there was an election today, Trump would be Biden in a landslide.
And Trump is way ahead of the Republican field.
So it was just yesterday, I think I saw, or maybe it was today, I saw on one of the networks, cable networks.
Oh, Trump would lose to Biden, but DeSantis would narrowly beat Biden.
Are those, is that an outlier poll?
When you look at those polls, and Matt Kittle's written about it for the Star Network, et cetera, when you look at those polls and compare it to the 2020 exit polls, the models, there's too many educated voters.
They're either short Republicans or short conservatives.
And not that education is a bad thing.
But if you put more college people, college-educated voters in there and less working-class voters, where Trump wins big among the working men and women, then you're skewing the polls towards Biden away from Trump.
And so they did that, where you say, hey, this poll, the demographics are skewed.
So they're doing this to manufacture a poll that says Trump can't win and DeSantis can.
And it's not a reflection of the actual models of a likely presidential turnout in those battleground states.
So, John, if Trump's poll numbers actually went up, I think there was sort of a backlash against the Alvin Bragg indictment against him.
As I say, pretty clearly politically motivated.
You've got potentially some other legal actions against Trump.
You've got, you know, in Fulton County, Georgia, Fanny Willis, the district attorney, seems bound and determined to do exactly what Bragg did.
She campaigned on the promise of getting Trump, and she tried to rig a special grand jury and then had to go to a regular grand jury.
And sometime this summer, it's been reported there'll be yet another indictment.
You've got Jack Smith, the special counsel, looking into January 6th, as well as the Mar-a-Lago documents and the FBI raid, where you have essentially the Attorney General trying to criminalize a civil statute, which is ludicrous in my judgment as a lawyer.
But what if those come to fruition?
We'll continue to go up because if you don't think Donald Trump's ahead in the polls right now, just look at those prosecutions coming from Biden and his political allies.
I mean, this is they are, I mean, when we asked voters on April 1st, we did a brushfire poll for the Trump campaign.
And when we asked them that, is there a double standard of justice where the Biden family escapes investigation and Trump is charged, 55% to 33% of all voters in the United States agreed with us?
And has Biden weaponized the justice system to prosecute their political opponents?
48% agree, 39% disagree.
Basically, the voters say that the country's on the wrong track, 71%, 69% going backwards.
But they see this as a prosecution to stop Trump from running and winning for president again.
All right, I want to take a quick break.
When we come back, I want to delve into the impact of the Biden family corruption scandals and in particular, and I've long written that Biden appears to be in the pocket of the Chinese Communist Party by virtue of the millions of dollars that have flowed into Biden bank accounts.
I want to get your input on what Americans think of that.
My guest is John McLaughlin of McLaughlin Associates, one of the best pollsters in America.
I'm Greg Jarrett, filling in for Sean Hannity.
This is the Sean Hannity Show.
I'll be right back in just a moment.
Welcome back to the Sean Hannity Show.
I'm Greg Jarrett, filling in for Sean.
My new book comes out in just a few days, Trial of the Century.
It'll be in bookstores nationwide beginning on Tuesday, but you can go online and order it pre-sale right now.
My guest, we're continuing our discussion, is John McLaughlin of McLaughlin Associates, one of the best polling groups in America.
If you judge accuracy, his record is pretty darn close to perfect.
John, welcome back.
We were talking about Joe Biden and the impact of the corruption scandals, notably elevated by the House Oversight Committee and Judiciary Committee hearings that have been held.
You know, $10 million flowing through 20 LLCs and shell companies into the Biden family coffers.
Are Americans following this?
Does it impact their vote?
No and yes.
I mean, the media, they've stopped covering the Biden administration.
They're too busy covering up for the Biden administration.
Where we found in our poll that was done nationwide, it was released on May 1st, 82% of all voters are aware that Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg indicted President Trump.
And it really makes no difference in the votes because everybody knows.
In the meantime, only 54% of the voters in that same poll were aware that the Chinese have funneled millions to the Biden family.
And if they're in the 54% that's aware of that, they vote for Trump 60% to 30%.
If they're in the 46% that are not aware about the Chinese money to the Biden family, they vote for Biden 58 to 33.
So you've got this huge 55-point swing based on media censorship, where if the media doesn't put this out, the voters don't know.
Just look at the fact that, remember, the chairman of the House committee, Comer, was telling the Biden Justice Department, don't indict Hunter until after we released the evidence and the information on Wednesday of that wreck.
Guess what the Justice Department did on Wednesday?
They indicted George Santos the same day.
It eclipsed the Biden family and Comer out of the out of the headlines on TV, except for Fox News and Newsmax.
Nobody covered it.
They all covered Santos.
The newspapers covered Santos.
And so you've got this, you know, you've got this huge scandal, a historic scandal that most voters who don't know about are voting for Biden and the ones who do vote for Trump.
Yeah.
I mean, all you have to do is listen to the whistleblowers who say both the FBI and the Department of Justice are running a protection racket for Joe Biden, which is why after five years of an investigation by a U.S. attorney, there have been no charges against Hunter Biden, principally in my judgment, because To indict Hunter Biden implicates Joe Biden as an active participant in his multi-million dollar schemes.
You're talking about, you know, $31 million from the Chinese, about $40 million from the Russia, $11 million from Ukraine.
I mean, in a city, Washington, D.C., where it is a cottage industry influence peddling and money-making off of it, the Bidens have taken it to dizzying heights.
So, you know, unfortunately, we're out of time, John, but the bottom line seems to be it's going to be up to Congress to continue their investigation, and it's going to be up to honest members of the media to report the compelling, overwhelming evidence of corruption and influence peddling.
My guest has been John McLaughlin of McLaughlin Associates, one of the best pollsters.
John, thanks so much for being with us.
I'm so glad you're enjoying the first chapter of my new book, The Trial of the Century.
It's out next Tuesday in bookstores nationwide.
You can order it online right now at the usual places, Amazon.com, BarnesandNoble.com.
I'm Greg Jarrett.
We'll be right back with more of the Sean Hannity Show.
Keeping Uncle Sam accountable to you every day.
Hannity is on.
Welcome back to the Sean Hennity Show.
I'm Greg Jarrett, filling in for Sean Hannity.
You can follow me on Twitter at Greg Jarrett.
You can read my legal columns and listen to my podcast, The Brief, at theGregjarrett.com.
And by the way, you can also click on there and buy my new book.
Comes out in just a few days.
It's called The Trial of the Century about the famous Scopes monkey trial.
And but for that trial, I wonder where America would be today.
Our cherished free speech rights were rescued and solidified by that historic trial.
Incredibly dramatic with a climactic moment.
The New York Times called it the most amazing court scene in Anglo-Saxon history.
Well, let's talk a little bit about the Durham Report, which of course came out recently, 306-page report.
The bottom line, it confirms FBI corruption.
You know, it's really incredible how Democrats are now saying of the Durham Report.
Nothing to see here.
Let's move along.
Joining me now to talk about it is my friend David Sean, former President Trump lead counsel during the impeachment trial, criminal defense attorney and civil liberties attorney, who, by the way, on a side note, knows all about the trial of the century, the Scopes monkey trial.
So, David, welcome to the show.
I'll have to ask you about that a bit later on.
But let's get now to what has been said by Democrats about the Durham Report.
It's really, to me, pretty shocking, but when you think about it, predictable.
Well, thanks very much for having me.
I have to say first, what you left out of your introduction is that all Mr. Durham had to do, apparently, was read your earlier book, The Russia Oaks.
You know, you called it well before the Durham Report did.
Five years ago.
Right.
And it tracks your book almost exactly, except you had more and better detail, quite frankly.
Thank you.
Anyway, yeah, listen, I think there, for me at least, the Durham Report is sort of too little, too late, but it is still an absolutely vitally important document for people to know and understand.
And, you know, you raised the issue now of the Democratic response to it.
I hope it's not the entire Democratic Party.
As you know, I represented the Democratic Party last year, and I think other people within the party feel differently if they're not saying so.
But you have people like Schiff and Swalwell speaking publicly about it, dismissing it as something no more than a process foul, Swalwell said, and so on.
And Schiff still talking about Russian collusion, except he has the characters wrong.
He has still talking about Russian collusion, President Trump instead of with Hillary Clinton.
It's shocking.
It's disappointing.
I suppose it shouldn't be shocking at this point, but it's a complete disgrace if after all of this, if it's nothing else, the report at least demonstrates the use of political, a partisan political agenda and funds to drive a government investigation, the use of the most intrusive surveillance techniques ever that we have in our government, false applications to get those surveillance techniques, all to support a partisan political agenda, Hillary Clinton campaign.
You know, and it wasn't just Schiff and Eric Swalwell, the usual suspects, infamous, nefarious, notorious individuals that they are.
But of course, now, you know, Jamie Raskin, the congressman, has jumped in and he said, and I'll quote, nobody takes Durham's report seriously.
Well, frankly, nobody takes Jamie Raskin seriously.
You know, I mean, he is such a hyper-partisan.
Then he went on to say, oh, there's nothing in that report that undermines our faith in the FBI.
Are you kidding me?
The entire report is chock full of evidence that is meticulously documented in records and testimony and so forth that completely, you know, requires Americans to look at the FBI and say they are corrupt, the top echelons of the FBI.
And it's gotten no better under Christopher Wray, has it?
No, it doesn't seem to.
Listen, I've said many times, my father was a very proud FBI agent.
I've loved the FBI agents since I was a little kid.
I have a lot of mementos from those times and so on.
This is not that FBI.
It's a shame.
You have some absolutely fabulous special agents in the field dedicated to the purpose of the true purpose of the FBI.
This makes them look terrible.
Leadership has really let us down.
But Jamie Raskin and folks like him, unfortunately, do such a disservice to the country.
There's nothing wrong with calling it what it is today.
In fact, there's everything right about it.
It's the only way we're going to cure the ills.
In this country, we cannot have a system in which we can't depend on the Justice Department to be honest or the FBI to be honest.
Their task is too important.
And when the public loses faith and they lose credibility, we're in big trouble.
You know, I will, in all fairness, because most of the media has taken the opinion of we're not going to report on the Durham Report.
There's nothing there.
Or they've simply said, you know, as Andrew Weissman said, it's a big, fat nothing.
But I'll give a shout out to Jake Tapper, who said, this is really serious and disturbing.
And Chuck Todd over at NBC, who said, you know, this is so alarming.
It requires now a brand new church commission to try to by law, fix the FBI.
The church commission famously in the 1970s found so much corruption in the FBI, they enacted new laws to rein in the FBI.
So, I mean, there are some clarion voices out there, but most in the media, and, you know, I brought up Andrew Weissman.
I had to laugh when he, you know, took to the airways on MSNBC and I think it was MSNBC and said it's a big fat nothing.
My Lord, the Durham Report faults Weissman and others in the Mueller investigation for turning a blind eye to what Hillary Clinton had done in inventing the hoax.
Yeah.
Well, I mean, Weissman has to say this, doesn't he?
Because he's really at the heart of this.
We've talked about him for a long time.
I've said before, and I say it again and will always mean it, I suppose.
He's the most unethical and most ethically bankrupt prosecutor I have ever encountered.
And I have encountered him in a very serious case in New York.
He's at the heart of this problem.
But I suppose what's really at the root of the problem was originally picking only political partisans for the Mueller investigation or for the January 6th committee.
This undermines our processes in this country.
We can't do that anymore.
You know, you're right.
Credit to Jake Tapper.
But look what happened to him after he said it.
People calling for his resignation and they're outraged that CNN would put out such a product.
You have to give CNN Craig credit, I think, for at least putting him on and having him say that.
I found it embarrassing that, you know, I was called by some shows originally to do its thing on the Durham Report.
Then they said, well, we're only going to cover it a little bit, so I didn't do that.
But then I had to go, I went on British television, British television, yeah, to do a more full analysis of the report and all that.
You know, it makes a mockery of our system.
It really does.
The other person who really comes out with an ugly black eye is the vainglorious James Comey, who, by the way, refused to cooperate with the Durham investigation, now publicly claims to be suffering total amnesia.
I don't remember anything.
You know, which is a curious affliction since the special counsel's report, the Durham report, reveals that he demanded and receives quote-unquote daily briefings on what turned out to be the Russia hoax.
And then, of course, famously lied to the FISA court to spy on Carter Page and the Trump campaign, vouching for the credibility of a guy, Christopher Steele, the ex-British spy who composed the phony dossier, vouched for his credibility without telling the court, oh, by the way, we fired him for lying.
He was our confidential informant.
We found out he was lying, so we fired him.
They withheld that from the court.
And then, you know, they insisted to the court and the judges that, oh, you know, the dossier, it's totally accurate and true, when, in fact, they had already debunked it.
They knew it was bogus.
So James Comey, more than anybody else, has utterly destroyed the good name and reputation of the FBI, hasn't he?
Yeah, I mean, listen, you've written and spoken about him for years now, literally, and you've had it right on.
I happen to think that one of the most important things in the Durham Report is the confirmation, if it needed it, but I suppose it did need it once again, of these lies in the FISA omissions and lies in the FISA applications.
It's a very, very, very serious violation.
Again, for the public, I mean, this is a court that permits, if it's satisfied by the showing made before it, the most intrusive surveillance techniques known in the world based on the sworn affidavits by the people making the application, the Justice Department making the application.
It has a rule, Rule 13 of the court, requires that any material omission or misstatement be corrected after the fact.
As far as I know, they still have never corrected the omissions and the misstatements in their applications.
It's a very, very serious transgression, and it puts everyone's privacy at risk.
David Schona is my guess.
He's going to stick around for another segment.
Former President Trump lead counsel during the impeachment trial.
You should know about him.
He's a well-known civil liberties attorney who has often represented Democrats.
So in my judgment, David Schoen is one of the most fair and objective people I know.
David also read my, didn't read my book yet because I'm going to send it to him, but he knows all about the Scopes monkey trial, the trial of the century, the title of my new book coming out in just a few days.
David, stick around.
I want to ask you about the Scopes trial.
We'll be right back.
I'm Greg Jarrett, filling in for Sean on the Sean Hannity Show.
Welcome back to the Sean Hannity Show.
I'm Greg Jarrich filling in for Sean Hannity.
My guest is David Schoen, a well-known civil liberties attorney.
And David, thanks for sticking around.
You know, the Scopes monkey trial in 1925, I've written a brand new book, comes out in a few days called Trial of the Century about that important trial.
And it helped to establish the cherished free speech principles and civil liberties which Americans enjoy today.
It is as relevant now as it was nearly 100 years ago.
One of the reasons I wrote the book is because a lot of people don't know about that trial, especially young people who have never been taught about that pivotal trial in history class.
But you know about it, David.
I don't know as much as you know as going to be revealed in your book, and that's why I intend to buy the book right away.
But listen, you know, William Jennings Bryant was a seminal figure as a speaker, as an influencer of opinion in the country at that time, that people don't know about him either.
These were very, very telling times in this country.
Things could have gone either way, and that would have shaped the direction of the country.
That's why I assume you call it trial of the century.
I think that's accurate, quite frankly.
Yeah, it really is.
You know, America was on the precipice at this point in time, and the fundamentalist movement was so strong, such religious fervor that led by William Jennings Bryant, who was a three-time presidential nominee for the Democrats, was able to pressure states into banning books on evolution.
Think about that.
A cornerstone theory in science that, you know, all of science relies on.
And, you know, in Tennessee, they passed a law, thanks to Bryant, that actually criminalized the teaching of evolution in public schools.
Now, mind you, the textbooks approved by the state have a chapter on evolution, and yet they made it a crime for a teacher to teach from the textbook.
It's okay for the students to read it, but a teacher dare not utter the word evolution in the classroom.
And John Scopes, this young 25-year-old, amiable, likable biology substitute teacher, taught evolution straight from the textbook, basically reading from the textbook.
He was promptly arrested, handcuffed, and shoved off to the Huscal.
And the greatest attorney who ever lived, my idol Clarence Darrow, was so incensed, he volunteered to defend Scopes, but he was really defending academic autonomy, intellectual empowerment, free speech, and civil liberties.
And, you know, the climactic moment where he cross-examines William Jennings Bryant utterly destroyed Bryant, and he died five days later, still in Dayton, Tennessee, just down the street from the courthouse.
He laid down to take a nap, and he never woke up.
He was utterly destroyed.
I got about 30 seconds left, but, you know, put a period on the end of that, David.
I mean, that is a fabulous description of so much about the Scopes monkey trial, quite frankly, and American history during that period.
But it resonates today, though, because we see, you know, this kind of thing going on.
Part of the reason the position William Jenny Bryan took was so powerful is because he was such a powerful orator.
But you're right, Darrow destroyed him.
Darrow's also my hero.
But I think everyone has to read it to consider what's going on today.
I just heard a graduation speaker talk about the danger of book bannings and all that.
But I think, quite frankly, we're seeing things on the other side now.
We're seeing words that can't be used and subjects that can't be taught because of certain sensitivities.
Yes, we need to be sensitive, but we need to have all of these things out there.
We need Darrow today, but you got to read this book.
I really can't wait.
You brought chills to me as a lawyer, but as an American, I think, just describing that period and what happened during the course of the trial.
David Schoen, Civil Liberties Attorney, thank you so much for being our guest.
Thanks so much.
Coming up next, I'll be talking with Peter Schweitzer and Eric Eggers.
They're going to be stopping by to talk about the Clintons and what the FBI learned from them.
We'll be right back.
I'm Greg Jarrett, filling in for Sean on the Sean Hannity Show.
▲
Export Selection