All Episodes
Previous Next
June 9, 2023 - Sean Hannity Show
33:54
The DOJ Press Conference - June 9th, Hour 1

The liberal media has given a complete pass to President Biden and Hillary Clinton for their various scandals and mishandling of documents.  President Trump is clearly not getting the same treatment.  Sean covers the DOJ press conference in great detail.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is an iHeart Podcast.
Breaking news now.
All right, thanks, Scott Chan.
And thanks to all of you.
Let's go right to special counsel Jack Smith, who released his um indictment against Donald Trump.
Thirty-seven federal charges.
He's speaking now.
We start from the top, just started one minute ago.
Good afternoon.
Today, an indictment was unsealed, charging Donald J. Trump with felony violations of our national security laws, as well as participating in a conspiracy to obstruct justice.
This indictment was voted by a grand jury of citizens in the Southern District of Florida.
And I invite everyone to read it in full to understand the scope and the gravity of the crimes charged.
The men and women of the United States intelligence community and our armed forces dedicate their lives to protecting our nation and its people.
Our laws that protect national defense information are critical to the safety and security of the United States, and they must be enforced.
Violations of those laws put our country at risk.
Adherence to the rule of law is a bedrock principle of the Department of Justice, and our nation's commitment to the rule of law sets an example for the world.
We have one set of laws in this country, and they apply to everyone.
Applying those laws, collecting facts, that's what determines the outcome of an investigation.
Nothing more and nothing less.
The prosecutors in my office are among the most talented and experienced in the Department of Justice.
They have investigated this case hewing to the highest ethical standards, and they will continue to do so as this case proceeds.
It's very important for me to note that the defendants in this case must be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
To that end, my office will seek a speedy trial in this matter, consistent with the public interest and the rights of the accused.
We very much look forward to presenting our case to a jury of citizens in the Southern District of Florida.
In conclusion, I would like to thank the dedicated public servants of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, with whom my office is conducting this investigation, and who work tirelessly every day upholding the rule of law in our country.
Thank you very much.
All right, that is the full statement of Jack Smith.
Um laws are critical to the safety and security of the United States.
And that's our commitment.
We have one set of laws that apply to everyone.
He goes on to say, nothing more, nothing less.
And they use the highest ethical standards, and defendants are innocent until proven guilty.
Look forward to presenting it to a jury, etc., etc.
etc.
Let's go back to July 2016, shall we?
And let's go to the former FBI director, and that would be, I'm sure, the same set of standards and and laws apply to Hillary.
Let's remind everybody what uh James Comey said that very, very important day when he talked about top secret classified documents that were in Hillary Clinton's possession.
Never mind the 33,000 that she deleted uh emails on her servers and the bleach pit to delete them, which would be called obstruction.
Uh never mind any of that.
Let's see if what Jack Smith just said appl is applicable to what James Comey is saying here.
From the group of 30,000 emails returned to the State Department in 2014, 110 emails in 52 email chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received.
Eight of those chains contained information that was top secret.
Thirty-six of those chains Contained secret information at the time.
And eight contained confidential information at the time.
Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.
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.
No reasonable prosecutors, let's see, 30,000 emails, 110 emails, 52 email chains, uh with classified top secret information.
Eight of the chains are top secret, 36 a secret, eight confidential, uh, but no um evidence of the intention of Hillary Clinton.
Um, okay, so I guess that that pretty much answers everything.
Let me let me go to where we are today and and what this means.
It is um if you listen to that press conference and listen to everything that Jack Smith had to say, it is the exact opposite in terms of how this country treated a presidential candidate that they favored.
I mean, we heard James Comey recently said it has to be only Joe Biden, only Joe Biden.
Uh so we know where his political allegiance uh is.
Uh we learned an awful lot about the 2016 election and and other nefarious activities.
Nobody's been held accountable.
If we're gonna, you know, again, if we're gonna apply the laws and and talk about the safety of the United States, you think it's wise for the United States to be using a bought and paid for Russian disinformation dossier paid for by one candidate, unverifiable.
Um, in in early October 2016, Comey's FBI offers a million dollars to the author of this dossier, a series of documents that cumulatively are known as the dossier.
Uh and if they could if Christopher Steele could only corroborate the dossier, he couldn't collect his million dollars.
But then it w shows up in not one but four separate FISA applications, which says at the top of the application, verified.
Now, let's see.
Uh we have one set of laws that apply to everyone.
Now, I wonder if I lied to a Pfizer court if I would get away with it just like James Comey got away with it three times and Sally Yates once and Rod Rosenstein once and a bunch of other people.
Because I don't think that would be the case.
You know, we talk about the highest ethical standards and so on and so forth.
Okay, well, I'm I'm looking at these charges.
It's a 49-page indictment.
It lays out 37 federal charges against Trump, including obstruction and unlawful retention of defense information for storing dozens of classified documents at his Florida resort, Mar-a-Lago, and then refusing to return them to the FBI and the National Archives.
Uh, they also named in the indictment uh a former presidential aide.
I I have no idea who this individual is.
I might have met him over the years.
I have no idea.
Uh Walt Nauta, but you know, I'm I was not one that ever frequented at all Mar a Lago except for mostly interviews.
Um anyway, who remained in his employee after Trump left office, he now faces six charges because I guess he listened to his boss and moved boxes.
You know, there's this there's this whole narrative at the beginning of this indictment that you would think that Donald Trump ordered every single solitary document to be packed.
That's not how the process works.
The way it works is it's chaotic.
Just like in the early days of the Trump administration, James Comey freely admitted that he took advantage of the chaos of the new administration to send his FBI officials over, uh, not read Miranda rights to General Flynn, uh, but to start the probe against him uh for the purpose of investigating him, but not telling him that they're investigating them, taking advantage of the chaos of an early administration.
Well, there's chaos at the end of administrations and this chaos at the beginning of an administration.
But I don't recall any FBI director ever taking advantage of that and denying somebody what I believe is a fundamental constitutional right.
Um, you know, but thirty-one of these counts or thirty-one of these such documents, uh, and this covers counts one through thirty-one.
There are, if you look in in total, thirty-seven federal charges now against Trump, one for each document, by the way, that there's specifically referring to.
Uh I guess you could look at the hundred and ten emails with fifty-two email chains, the Hillary Clinton, and and that doesn't include the thirty-three thousand that she deleted with bleach bit and then had devices destroyed with hammers.
So again, but Jack Smith said we have only one set of laws that apply to everyone.
Now, why does that in his very short statement?
I would argue because he's very sensitive to the obvious comparisons that will be made, and that is that how Hillary was treated versus how Trump is being treated.
Uh, how Joe Biden has been treated versus how Trump has been treated.
Seems like if if those words really matter, you would think the same application of these things would happen.
Because with the Biden case, they they've never given us the full accounting of what they found at four separate locations.
One is the Biden Garage with his ever so prized uh and love corvette.
Uh the other being the Penn Biden Center at UPenn, uh, the other one being the University of Delaware, they have papers top secret, classified information going back to the time he was a senator, and then of course his Beach House when you know they told him they were going, but they gave him two weeks to go clean it out, and they still found you know classified documents there.
Anyway, the summary is you know, if you you look at it, the willful retention of national defense information, that would be charges one through 31, each individual count uh of the investigation, uh conspiracy to obstruct justice,
how the president and his aide, along with others are charged with conspiring to keep those documents from the grand jury, uh, withholding a document or a record, and they're accused of misleading one of their attorneys by moving boxes or classified documents so the attorney could not find or introduce them to the grand jury,
uh, or corruptly concealing a document uh or record pertaining to the president and his aides, alleged attempts to hide the boxes of classified documents from the attorney, concealing a document in a federal investigation, accusing uh they've accused of hiding Trump's continued possession of these documents at Mar-a-Lago from the FBI and and causing a false certificate to be submitted to the FBI,
a scheme to conceal that's an allegation that the president and his aide hid Trump's continued possession of these materials from the FBI and the grand jury, and false statements of representations.
I mean, they just go on and on.
They just piled on every single solitary thing that they could pile on here.
You know, um, beyond the 31 individual charges of documents, which is what this is.
I mean, it becomes very redundant, very repetitive when you actually look at the indictment.
You know, it says, okay, top secret, you know, not for foreign uh uh national special handling, you know, one document uh after another that is is listed.
That was the 31 of the 37 counts.
So it sounds like a lot more, but each individual count carries a significant penalty.
Now they also are claiming that they have audio tapes of Donald Trump acknowledging that he had not at one point said that uh that he did at one point recognize that I could have declassified something as president.
I didn't, therefore I can't share it, but then claiming that he shared it with people that were around him, what that is, I don't know.
I mean, these are things that we'll we'll find out in the days and and weeks ahead.
Um anyway, so let me go over Jack Smith's statement in a little more detail and specificity here.
Because I think it's important to know the indictment unsealed, Donald Trump, uh, grand jury, et cetera, et cetera.
I invite everyone to read it in full, understand the scope, gravity of the crimes.
Many women of the United States intelligence community or armed forces, they dedicate their lives to protecting the nation and its people are laws that protect national defense information.
They are critical to the safety and security of the United States.
They must be enforced.
Were they enforced on Hillary Clinton?
I asked that question because he further goes on to say that our laws, our set of laws apply to everyone.
And I'll get to that in a second.
He says, our laws protect national defense information that are critical to our safety and security.
Violation of those laws put our country at risk.
Adherence to the rule of law is a bedrock principle or Department of Justice in our nation's commitment to the rule of law sets an example to the world.
One set of laws in this country and they apply to everyone.
No, they don't.
That is a false statement.
Applying those laws, collecting facts, and that is what determines the outcome of an investigation.
Nothing more, nothing less.
My prosecutors are among the most talented, experienced in the Department of Justice, blah, blah, blah.
The only difference is they don't apply these laws equally.
Anyway, 800, 941 Sean, we'll get our legal analysis.
Uh, we'll get to your calls today.
We got we got a lot of ground to cover in the course of this program.
The media mob, their coverage of all this.
Hannity tonight, nine Eastern on the Fox News Channel.
By the way, if you have not made the switch away from the big carriers, ATT, Verizon T Mobile, now is the time.
You'll get the same 5G network, the same cell towers, average families for the same coverage, saving close to a thousand dollars a year, many families saving more at Pure Talk.
Right now you can get unlimited talk, unlimited text, ultra fast 5G data, and it's only 20 bucks a month.
And that's for the exact same service.
How do you change service?
It's simple.
Dial pound 250, say the keyword save now, and then you can get unlimited talk and text and plenty of data for just 20 bucks a month.
That's their special going on now.
They're U.S. uh customer service team, they're amazing.
They'll make the switching simple, easy, and fast.
Just pick up your phone right now, save money for the exact same service, dial pound 250, save the keyword save now.
Unlimited talk, unlimited text, plenty of 5G data, 20 bucks a month from our friends at Pure Talk.
Pure Talk And now a word from the 46th president of the United States.
And by the way, you know, I sit on the stand.
And it gets hot.
I got a lot.
I got hairy legs that turn, that churn uh about um blonde in the sun.
Sean Hannity is on right now.
All right, 25 now to the top of the hour.
Want to remind you about pre-born uh great partners of ours.
Uh they're using the science of ultrasound uh to change people's hearts.
They give a they give free ultrasounds to any expecting mom.
And what they're discovering with 4D ultrasound is that when expecting moms see uh fingers and toes and facial features, things that I couldn't see with an ultrasound when my kids were uh, you know, mom when they were expected to be born, anyways it's gotten so sophisticated.
Uh it is changing their hearts.
And all of these ultrasounds are given for free.
They also offer free counseling, they offer baby formula, diapers, food, whatever, whatever expecting moms may need both before and after the birth of a child, um, and they're just basically appealing to hearts and using sign to do it.
We had one young woman was pregnant, goes to an abortion clinic, she didn't want to tell her parents while she was there.
She says, Mom, I'm pregnant, I'm I'm having an appointment, I have an abortion, I can't do it, because she heard an ad just like this on preborn, and anyway, she ended up giving life to that precious baby.
Uh, for those of you that are believing the sanctity of life or part of the pro-life movement, uh, this science is actually working.
They don't get a penny from the federal government like Planned Parenthood.
Anyway, you can donate by dialing pound two fifty, say the keyword baby, pound two fifty, keyword baby, or go to their secure website at preborn.com slash Sean S E A N. I recently donated two machines so that they can put them up in two new clinics that they have.
On the news front, if you're just joining us, uh the indictment has been unsealed 30 49 pages, 37 federal charges, uh 31 of which covering counts one through 31 applying to President Trump for allegedly storing 31 documents at Mar-a-Lago,
then conspiracy to obstruct justice, withhold a document or a record, corruptly conceal a document or record, concealing a document in a federal investigation, a scheme to conceal false statements and representations and false statements and representations, too.
Uh, We'll get to the specifics with Alan Derschwitz.
Now, before we get to that point, Jack Smith just spoke, and he said, many women and of the U.S. intelligence community, men, men and women, and our armed forces, they dedicate their lives to protecting their nation and its people.
Our laws that protect national defense information, they are critical to the safety and security of this country, the United States, and they must be enforced.
Violations of those laws put our country at risk.
Adherence to the rule of law is a bedrock principle of the Department of Justice.
It is our nation's commitment to the rule of law that sets an example to the world.
We have one set of laws in this country, and they apply to everyone.
Applying those laws, collecting facts, that is what determines the outcome of an investigation, nothing more, nothing less.
Let me play three cuts for you, and then we'll bring in Professor Dershowitz, who wrote the best-selling book, Get Trump.
This is James Comey.
And this is James Comey in July of 2016, laying out all the top secret classified uh information that she found on Hillary Clinton's servers.
Now, please take note it did not include the 33,000 deleted emails with bleach bit never to be found again, or the devices destroyed by hammers, uh blackberries and iPhones and SIM cards removed.
That that's not included in his list.
But this is what he said that day in July.
From the group of 30,000 emails returned to the State Department in 2014, 110 emails in 52 email chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received.
Eight of those chains contained information that was top secret.
Thirty-six of those chains contained secret information at the time, and eight contained confidential information at the time.
Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.
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.
Now James Comey two days later before Congress admitting that Hillary instructed Jake Sullivan to remove classified markings so she could fax the classified document.
And I'll add one other point.
Comey admitted in that presser uh that in fact they believe that foreign uh adversaries of the U.S. had access to all of Hillary Clinton's emails.
Listen.
How did the Department of Justice or how did the FBI view the incident in which Hillary Clinton instructed Jake Sullivan to take the marksing markings off of a document that was to be sent to her?
Yeah, we looked at that pretty closely.
There was some problem with their secure facts machine.
And there's an email in which she says, in substance, take the headers off of it and send it as a non-paper.
As we've dug into that more deeply, we've come to learn that at least there's one view of it that is reasonable that a non-paper in in State Department parlance means a document that contains things we could pass to another government.
So essentially take out anything that's classified and send it to me.
Now, it turned out that didn't happen because we actually found that the classified facts was then sent, but that's our best understanding of what that was about.
So this was a classified facts.
Correct.
So Jake Sullivan says they say they had issues sending secure facts.
They're working on it.
Hillary Clinton sends to Jake Sullivan.
If they can't turn into non-paper with no identifying heading, and send non-secure.
So you're telling me it's a classified piece of information.
She's taking off the header and she's instructing them to send it in a non-secure format.
Here's another cut.
Then we bring in Professor Derschwitz, and that's Comey testifying, same committee two days after as no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute that ten people had access to Hillary Clinton's servers, and Hillary's lawyers went through the emails uh without any security clearance.
Now Jack Smith said that we have one set of rule, one set of laws in this country, and they apply to everyone.
Well, didn't apply to her from what I'm hearing.
Listen.
Yeah, I there's no doubt that uncleared people had access to the server, because even after Pagliano, there were others who maintain the server who were private sector folks.
So there are hundreds of classified documents on these servers.
How many people without a security clearance had access to that server?
I don't know the exact numbers I said here.
It's probably more than two, less than ten.
I appreciate your willingness to follow up with this.
Did Secretary Clinton's attorneys have the security clearances needed?
They did not.
Does that concern you?
Oh, yeah.
Sure.
Is there any consequence to an attorney?
Rifling through Secretary Clinton's Hillary Clinton's emails without a security clearance?
Well, not necessarily criminal consequences, but there's a great deal of concern about an uncleared person not subject to the requirements we talked about in the read-in documents, potentially having access.
That's why very, very important for us to recover everything we can back from attorneys.
So what's the consequence?
I mean, here Hillary Clinton gave ac gave direction to her attorneys without a security clearance to go through documents that were classified.
I think that's what happened in fact.
Uh whether that was the direction is uh is it is a question I can't answer sitting here.
All right, joining us now, the author of the best-selling book, Get Trump, uh Professor Alan Dershowitz is with us.
Uh Professor uh, well, you wrote a lot about this.
Let me ask you the obvious.
I just played three cuts of James Comey.
Yeah.
Uh we just heard from Jack Smith saying we have one set of laws in this country and they apply to everyone.
Do you believe the standard that Jack Smith applied to Donald Trump in this indictment today uh was applied to Hillary Clinton?
No, I don't.
And uh Smith did something very clever.
He didn't indict Trump under the section of the Espionage Act that permits indictments for gross negligence or negligence, which is what Hillary Clinton was um suspected of, and what uh Comey said nobody's ever been prosecuted for.
He deliberately changed uh and went after Trump on the willfulness section.
Uh I don't want to give you the numbers, but it's E versus F of the statute, so that he could make the argument that I'm distinguishing this.
Because we're not charging Trump with negligence, gross negligence.
We're charging him with willfully and knowingly um holding on to material and transmitting it to other people.
Remember, the key point in this indictment, and the one that is the most difficult for Trump is that tape conversation uh with the Meadows writer in which he says um this is a secret that hasn't been classified declassified.
I could have declassified it.
We don't know whether he actually showed it to him or just allowed him to look at the fact that he had this.
But the clearly what what what the special prosecutor prosecutor is trying to do is distinguish this case from Hillary Clinton from Pence from Joe Biden from Sandy Berger.
Uh we'll have to wait to see the evidence and whether or not there's a distinction.
It's easy for a prosecutor just to say, I'm going under this section of the statute, and that distinguishes it.
No, that doesn't distinguish it.
What distinguishes it are the facts and the evidence.
All right.
Now, you've had a chance to look at this unsealed indictment.
You heard from Jack Smith today.
And, you know, we we know all about Joe Biden.
We have four locations.
He has top secret classified information.
And we know all about Hillary Clinton, and I want to know if we have equal justice from what you can see in application of our laws in this country, or are they just, you know, again pursuing Donald Trump because he's Donald Trump.
I mean, do you believe that in fact we have equal justice in application of our laws?
No, I don't.
I don't think they ever would have opened an investigation uh against somebody who wasn't Trump.
And once they open the investigation, then you always get process crimes.
You get people being indicted for moving a box here and there for talking to a lawyer for doing uh other other things.
Um and I read the indictment very carefully, and most of it is stuff that could easily have covered a Doctrine and other people.
The one thing that stands out, and we have to wait for an explanation for that.
Maybe there'll be a good one, is that recorded conversation with the writer who's writing about Meadows.
That will be the heart and soul of the case.
It's interesting that the indictment puts that front and center right in the beginning of the indictment, and then it ignores it almost completely when it comes to charging.
I I couldn't even find it.
I it was very finely after looking.
I found that you know the violation of the espionage act by disclosure.
But um uh that's the the key point that has to be explained.
Everything else in the indictment could have easily been directed against uh Hillary Clinton, and perhaps to some degree against um uh President Biden.
So no, I don't think there's equal justice.
You know, as you you read this, now I think one thing that did happen with with Donald Trump and uh some other points I just haven't made up to this point is you know, we're learning more that for example, he apparently has got uh a Trump appointed judge uh presiding over the documents case trial.
To me, that uh that may mean the difference between conviction and nonconviction, uh, because if this case was tried in DC, there's no way he'd have even a shot at a fair trial.
Yes, um I'm not sure why they hit an a valet.
I mean, did the valet of President Trump really know what his boss was asking him to do?
That seems like a stretch to me, but you know, I guess vote we'll find out in time.
Uh that seemed like a bit of overreach to me.
Uh what do you make of the fact that the president's lawyers now have resigned in this case?
That that can't be good for President Trump.
Well, no, I think it could be good for President Trump.
I think once you decide that the case is going to be in South Florida and Palm Beach, and you know who the judge is, you you know, arrange your batting order differently the way a manager would when he decides you know who the pitcher is.
So, you know, calling an audible here and changing lawyers may be a good thing.
The reason why the valet was indicted has nothing to do with the valet.
They want to flip them.
Um you know that prosecutors can put enormous pressure on people like him who didn't have any money, and um and uh can get him not only to sing, but perhaps to compose, uh, write some lyrics and music that the prosecutor would like to hear.
So the reason they indicted him is simply to get him to flip.
And uh he seems like a loyal fellow who maybe won't flip, but we don't know that for sure.
You know, I I just uh can't even imagine.
You know, this is all in the lead up to a race.
Now a lot of people don't know, uh Professor, that the DOJ is part of the executive branch of government.
This is Biden's DOJ.
Now, we would like to think that justice is blind and and equal application exists.
Um but you know what?
We haven't heard a peep out of the special uh counsel appointed to look into Joe Biden's issues.
Haven't heard word one about any grand jury convened.
Uh we have four separate locations, a garage, the Biden uh uh U Penn Center, uh the University of Delaware, a beach house in Delaware, and you know, top secret classified information.
Why why does that seem less severe in the minds of of special counsels?
It shouldn't be.
And what I suspect will happen is that the special counsel will indict the Hunter Biden on two technical uh slap on the wrist charges, um having falsely filled out a gun.
So that's to create a false narrative that there's equal justice when in fact if they were really going to go after uh the Biden family, they would look into the fact that Joe lied about having conversations with his son about his foreign business dealings and having meetings uh and having his son implicate him by giving him monies repeatedly in his own laptop.
It's not a crime to lie.
It's a sin, but it's not a crime as long as he didn't lie to law enforcement officials or to uh Congress or under oath.
Um but it's relevant, obviously, and uh a lot of people in America don't believe that they didn't speak about this.
But you know, we'll there should be another we know of at least fourteen meetings.
We have photographic evidence that he lied and was meeting with Hunter and Biden's business associates.
No question, no question that there's enough here, as I've said before, there is probable cause to conduct a serious investigation to make sure that the law is applied equally.
And uh Well, they've had that since December of 2019, and here we are.
They move with with the spe warp speed, the speed of light to get Donald Trump, and yet they've been sitting on everything involving Hunter, and it's only taken a Republican Congress to fight to get the SARS reports and and find LLCs that that were hidden uh all over the Biden family.
That's why we have checks and balances.
How important it is to have a system where the House can be under the leadership of one party and the Senate and the executive another party.
So we have checks and balances, and I think it's important for the Republicans to be uh looking into this very, very, very, very with great scrutiny.
And you know, I prep maybe they uh come up with a draft indictment uh that they would have issued again a great idea.
Uh I got a run, Professor.
The book is called Get Trump, and all of this is in there, and he's been way ahead of the curve on this.
I want to remind you inflation on the rise, stock market volatility is worse than ever, protecting your retirement savings.
That could be a challenge.
Now, to weather today's economic uncertainty, our friends at the Phoenix Capital Group, they recommend diversifying your investments right now.
Now, they recommend high-value U.S. oil and gas investments with the current yields that range from eight percent to twelve percent APY, all paid monthly.
Now, that's a better rate of return than banks or CDs.
There's no middlemen.
They're both Regulation A Plus, Regulation D Corp bond offerings.
They have different maturities, qualifications, and rates.
They have a nine percent APY starting at 5,000, an investment open to all investors.
You can download the Phoenix Capital Group's free investor guide today.
It's a PHX on Hannity.com.
Now, before making any investment decision, you got to very carefully consider any and all risks involved and review them.
And we can have a conversation with your financial professional.
There's only one place to get these investments, and that's with Phoenix Capital Group.
Just go to their website to get their free uh investor guide.
You can download it at PHX on Hannity.com.
Music.
Sean Hannity.
All right, when we come back, more legal analysis, more updates on the information and the indictment against Donald Trump.
Apparently, the grand jury never heard in-person testimony.
They got read the testimony in D.C. I'll explain that when we get back.
▲
Export Selection