All Episodes
Previous Next
June 9, 2023 - Sean Hannity Show
32:14
Defending Trump - June 9th, Hour 2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is an iHeart podcast.
All right, hour two, Sean Hannity Show.
Glad you're with us.
800-941 Sean, if you want to be a part of the program, if you are just joining us, we have a 37-count indictment against Donald Trump that has been unsealed, 31 counts of willful retention and national defense information.
I've gone over this one obstruction case, one count of withholding a document, one count corruptly concealing a document or a record, one count concealing a document in a federal investigation, one count who schemed to conceal, one count of false statements or representations alleging Trump showed classified documents to people in 2021.
Also, his executive assistant, apparently a valet was also charged, and it goes on and on from there.
Now, Jack Smith made a statement.
What really stood out in my mind is he said, you know, any violation of our national defense information, it's critical to the safety and security of this country and must be enforced.
He said 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.
You know, it sets an example for the world.
And we have one set of laws in this country and they apply to everyone.
And then, of course, I took you back in time and James Comey's 20 July 2016 press conference when he said from the group of 30,000 emails, by the way, not factoring in the 33,000 emails deleted with Bleach Pit, the devices destroyed by hammers, SIM cards removed.
Anyway, Comey goes on to say, those 30,000 that they did have, Hillary Clinton had 110 emails, 52 email chains that 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.
36 of the chains contained secret information at the time, and eight contained confidential information.
Huh.
Well, wait a minute.
I just read, Jack Smith said we have one set of laws in this country and they apply to everybody.
And then I played, you know, other statements by James Comey when he went before Congress two days later and admitted that Hillary instructed Jake Sullivan to remove classified markings so that he could fax a classified document.
And then Comey testified that 10 people had access to Hillary's servers and Hillary's lawyers went through the emails, none of whom had any security clearances.
Oh, it sounds very similar to me.
So if, let's see, we have one set of laws in this country and they apply to everyone.
Oh, apparently not.
By the way, the New York Times just revealed, you want to talk about a fascinating detail in all of this.
Obviously, the plan was for Jack Smith to try this the whole time in Washington, D.C.
Then ultimately, they started to figure out that the jurisdiction really belonged to Miami and the Southern District of Miami.
And anyway, the New York Times is reporting that the Florida grand jury, which handed down the indictments on Donald Trump last night, never heard in-person testimony from most of the witnesses in this case.
The overwhelming majority of in-person testimony, that was delivered to the Washington, D.C. grand jury.
And then Jack Smith, realizing last month that the case needed to be brought to Florida, all they did was transcribe the Washington testimony and read it back to the Florida grand jury.
Now, You could indict a ham sandwich before a grand jury, but for the overwhelming majority of witnesses, any judgment about their credibility, what about hearing it directly from them?
Their body language, their facial expressions, their voice inflections, their tone, their cadence was never available to Florida grand jurors.
Wow.
That's pretty interesting.
Side note.
Anyway, joining us now, author of the best-selling book, Trial of the Century, Greg Jarrett, is with us, along with David Schoen, who was former President Trump's attorney.
Welcome, both of you.
Let's get your initial impressions of the indictment.
Greg Jarrett.
Greg, are you there?
Former president are ugly.
You know, the attorney general of the likely Democratic nominee bringing charges against the leading Republican candidate.
You know, Sean, is this really in the interests of justice, which is the foremost consideration before bringing charges?
You know, both candidates had allegedly classified documents, yet the person in power is not charged, but his opponent is.
Now, I mean, I have read through the indictment.
It is redundant in the extreme.
It's otherwise known as count stacking.
The photographs contained within are inflammatory.
They're not remotely relevant to proof.
And the indictment is long on broad condemnation, short on specifics, which by itself is.
I think we're losing Greg here.
Let's see if we can reconnect with him.
David Schoen, let's get your take.
Well, it's a clever attempt, but it's a very sick document, quite frankly.
I say it's clever because as predicted, they charged under 793E, which doesn't require them now to deal with the whole idea of classified or did the president declassify them properly and so on.
It just requires it to be national defense information, which is very broadly construed.
But then they have to prove that he did.
That's 18 U.S. Code 793.
What paragraph?
E, little E in parentheses.
And they still have to prove that he willfully did it, knowing that it was prohibited by law to retain these things.
So this is why I've said if they're going to prosecute President Trump under this theory, they absolutely must 100% prosecute Joe Biden because of the hundreds of documents that he retained.
You can be sure as broadly as national defense information is construed that his documents contain national defense information.
Unlike Donald Trump, the businessman, Joe Biden knew exactly what he could retain and not retain after decades in the government.
So he certainly, on the face of it, ought to be charged with 793E if this is a government theory.
But I say it's sick because this is a speaking indictment.
They tell a whole narrative in there referring to so-called classified documents and so on, knowing that they don't have to charge under this charge classified documents, but it's all for public consumption.
And I'll tell you this about this Jack Smith's speech today, especially as you focused on we have one set of laws for everyone.
It reminded me of a cue line for Queen Gertrude and Hamlet when she said, the lady doth protest too much, methinks, to a particularly insincere character.
This guy, Smith, knows that the public is thinking, at least half the country, is cynical about this and thinking, how can it possibly be?
You didn't prosecute Hillary Clinton.
You're not going after Joe Biden so far.
And you're going to bring this against the president.
And thickest of all, maybe, is using the witness tampering statute, section 1512, for this.
They had a concealing or corruptly concealing government documents charge under the government documents statute 2071, but they charged something and use it for a mob prosecution.
They're alleging that President Trump corruptly advised people, directed people to conceal documents.
You're going to see witnesses, I think, who are going to be the lawyers in this case.
They're going to say quite the opposite, that he told them, cooperate fully.
We bring back Greg Jarrett and get your take on all this.
I agree with everything that I heard David say.
You know, it's easy to render an indictment and make these broad condemnations.
Providing specifics in support of crimes, that's dramatically different.
And so, you know, just picking apart some of it, moving documents around, all right, so what?
That's not a crime, especially if you honestly believe they're your documents.
They belong to you under the Presidential Records Act.
And so then it says, oh, we're in different rooms.
Well, so what?
They say he didn't notify the Secret Service.
He doesn't have to.
Were any of these documents destroyed or altered?
Well, it doesn't say.
The charges state the documents were classified.
That is an assumption that Trump vigorously denies.
So, you know, indictments make these one-sided pronouncements, narratives that, in the end, in my experience, are not always supported by facts and evidence.
Prosecutors draw erroneous conclusions.
They interpret innocent acts as nefarious and criminal when, in the end, they're shown not to be.
Well, Greg, let me follow up on that.
They seem to, the special counsel seems to be relying on varying tapes to prove his point that A, he knew it wasn't declassified, couldn't show people.
I'm not so sure that's going to be the slam dunk that they think it is.
You know, if the president ever testified in his own case, he could say, yeah, I just didn't want to share it with this individual or that individual, but I had declassified.
It was my way of saying, you know what, I think it's best not to share this with somebody.
Yes, it could be that.
But then if it is classified, remember, Trump's main defense is that the Presidential Records Act gives him the right under law to maintain custody and control of presidential papers, whether they're classified or not.
You know, that's the governing statute.
It is civil.
It's not criminal.
And for more than a decade, the Justice Department agreed with that.
That became the DOJ's own established standard.
They even argued it in federal court in the Bill Clinton case, stating emphatically, Bill Clinton is entitled to keep whatever he wants after leaving office, including those classified tapes.
Well, you know, David, let me ask you this, because as we look at this, and I'm sure this is going to unfold, you know, we have a, we're in the middle, really, of the beginnings of a presidential election cycle.
We've been through two cycles now where the Department of Justice through the FBI have, you know, put cinder blocks on the scales of presidential elections.
Is this the third time that we're looking at possibly here?
Oh, absolutely.
And, you know, you made the point about switching grand juries.
They clearly wanted to get this out here, try to shut down President Trump quickly.
If anything, this action, misconduct, except perversion of justice, ought to encourage people to use the ballot box as their safety valve.
You know, the point you made also about the grand jury is important because it's supposed to be a grand jury investigation, meaning grand jurors have the opportunity to ask questions to witnesses.
That can't happen if you don't have the witnesses there alive.
And, you know, Greg alluded to this Bill Clinton situation.
He's spoken before about this 2012 case.
This is where the double standard might come back to bite them.
Because that was just Judge Amy Berman-Jackson, a real Trump hater who's spoken strongly about President Trump.
But in that case, Bill Clinton's actions were an issue.
She has very strong language in there.
And let me ask you, you're right about grand jurors having the right to ask questions.
The fact that they used one grand jury, not the one in Florida that ended up indicting, could that be a possible dismissal?
It'll be an issue to be raised.
But almost all grand jury misconduct, you know, it's very difficult to challenge almost all of it now after a Supreme Court case, Nova Scotia Bank.
But anyway, it's difficult to challenge.
They should raise it.
They should raise every issue.
And that's why it's critically important that President Trump has real criminal defense lawyers who have earned that badge.
Well, both as attorneys resigned today.
What do you make of that?
Well, I think we know from some previous press probably why they resigned in part.
But I'll say this.
They're fine lawyers.
They were brought in initially because of their Justice Department experience as liaisons with the Justice Department, along with Every Corcoran.
John Rowley was brought in by Evren Corcoran.
Jim Truski, actually, President Trump saw on Fox News and was impressed with.
And they served that.
Well, they were able to pierce attorney client privilege in this case.
They were able to pierce executive privilege in this case.
I mean, that's a lot of privilege that was exerted here, surprisingly so in my view.
Yeah.
Executive privilege, by the way, I don't mean to cut off Greg or anything.
Executive privilege could well raise its head again in this case in a number of ways.
This is a very, very, very defensible case, but you've got to be creative here and really know what you're doing and raising every issue.
All right.
Last word, Greg Jarrett.
I think this is a classic case of selective prosecution.
And, you know, I don't know how Merritt Garland justifies it.
You know, Hillary Clinton case, she wasn't a former president.
She knowingly kept classified documents in her home.
No charges brought.
Not to mention obstruction of justice, destroying evidence under subpoena.
It's pretty clear what's happening here.
Garland is interfering in a presidential election.
I think he's trying to knock out his boss's opponent with manufactured charges while at the same time working overtime to protect Biden in his bribery and influence peddling scandals.
You know, Sean, this is not just unequal application of the law.
It seems like crooked justice.
Yeah.
All right, Greg Jarrett and David Schoen, thank you both.
800-941-Sean.
Breaking news all afternoon.
When you get off work, be sure to check in first for everything you miss during the day.
This is the Sean Hannity Show.
I'm 25 to the top of the hour, 800-941-Sean.
If you want to be a part of the program, our friend Peter Schweitzer will be joining us along with Eric Eggers of the Government Accountability Institute.
Look, I want to remind you, you can do a lot of your firearm training using the great, incredible military-grade technology that is called Mantis X. All the best shooters in the world do a majority of their training doing dry fire practice at home.
Now, the Mantis X firearms training system, it's a no-ammo, all-electronic way to practice and improve your shooting accuracy.
You simply attach it to your own firearm, and you can use it at home, at the range.
You can do it with friends and family and neighbors.
You all have a great time.
It's a lot of fun, but it also gives you data-driven real-time feedback on your technique.
It'll guide you through drills and courses.
And 94% of shooters improve within 20 minutes of using Mantis X. Mantis X is used by the Marine Corps, by the Special Forces.
It's basically what you're getting is military-grade technology, and it's all at a very, very affordable price.
Mantis X, by the way, has improved.
Linda's shooting dramatically.
I mean, she couldn't shoot at all.
She couldn't hit the side of a barn for crying out loud.
That is fake news.
That is true.
You scored a nine.
That's like aiming at a barn and missing it.
I am ready to pay homage to Biden's balloon with my Mantis improvement.
Here we go.
We have, by the way, you lost big time in our poll.
Anyway, so, but you're going to love it.
It's like having your own personal firearms trainer right next to you, and it works.
And if you believe in your Second Amendment rights, you should act on your Second Amendment responsibility to be competent and confident in your shooting ability.
Anyway, just go to mantisx.com.
That's M-A-N-T-I-S-X.com.
We got into this yesterday and we mentioned it all throughout the last hour as well, because we have to compare and contrast the very issues that are real in terms of a double standard and a dual justice system.
And we have one in this country, unfortunately.
We know that Hillary Clinton mishandled top secret classified information on her servers.
We know that that happened.
We know that she deleted 33,000 subpoenaed emails.
We know that devices that likely had those emails on them were destroyed with hammers.
And we know that SIM cards were removed.
And then we know in the case, Jim Comey says no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute.
And when it comes to Trump, he faces multiple charges and raids of Mar-a-Lago.
Meanwhile, Biden can store similar documents in boxes in his wide open garage right next to his precious Corvette.
Nobody seems to care.
Never mind the Penn Biden Center.
Never mind the University of Delaware.
Never mind the Delaware Beach home.
And then we can't forget about the 2016 allegations of bribery against Joe Biden.
Finally, waiting to the very last minute, Christopher Wray just fought all he could until he was about to be held in contempt of Congress.
And the result is, oh, well, now I'll share with the House Intelligence.
I'm sorry, sorry, the House Government Reform Committee this allegation on a 1023 form by an informant that apparently was trusted, well trusted by the FBI, a confidential human source.
The source detailed conversations with a burisma executive to the FBI.
The executive reportedly referred to Hunter as dumb, but, quote, had to pay the Bidens because the Ukrainian prosecutor, Victor Shokin, was investigating Burisma, and it would be difficult to enter the U.S. market in the midst of that investigation.
That's the very same Ukrainian prosecutor that Biden ultimately forced out.
This source is claiming that a $5 million payout was directed to Joe Biden, another $5 million payment to Hunter Biden.
And the FBI has had this document since 2017.
And the question is, why haven't they done anything about it?
These were not direct payments.
This goes into the heart of what we learned through the suspicious activity reports with Comer's Committee, some 170 of them.
This is the numerous shell corporations they set up to funnel monies through that eventually, according to James Comer, got funneled to not one, but nine different Biden family members, including their grandchildren.
Sure, those grandchildren were working very hard for that money for countries like China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, etc.
Anyway, but these are very specific allegations made by a confidential human source who has worked with the FBI for years.
In fact, the FBI has even paid this guy hundreds of thousands of dollars for some of his previous intelligence.
And as far as we know, the DOJ has not done a thing to pursue a case against Joe Biden.
Or the implication that, you know, Hunter whining on his own laptop that half of his income goes to Pops or whining that he has to pay for Pops' home repairs with the money that he makes, basically making money off his Papa's name.
Joining us now is Peter Schweitzer and Eric Agers, both with the Government Accountability Institute.
Welcome both of you to the program.
In light, Peter, of all of what happened yesterday and what we expect to happen on Tuesday, you know, we've got to look at do we have in this country equal justice under the law and equal application of our laws, or do we have a dual justice system?
Well, it's very clear we have a dual justice system, Sean.
You know, what I've learned, and if you look at American history, when you're looking at political corruption or criminal activity, there's that phrase, follow the money, whether it's Tammany Hall, whether it's Watergate, that's always been the guiding principle.
What you have in the case of the Bidens is the actual irrefutable transference of money from foreign entities to the Bidens.
And there's no discernible service that was done for that transfer of that money.
What you have in this FBI-informed source is a specific, clear claim of a transfer of additional money to the Bidens by a foreign entity.
And look at what the FBI has done here.
First, when this document was brought to the attention of the FBI by the Oversight Committee, the FBI denied that the document even existed.
Then they finally acknowledged that it existed, but said, no, we can't turn it over because we need to protect sources.
That has not bothered them in cases in the past.
So there is a clear inconsistency here on a massive scale.
If you go back to the Russia collusion case, which of course was a sham, there was no evidence anytime that there was transference of money because there was no money that was ever shifted.
In the case of the Bidens, we now know tens of millions of dollars have flowed to them.
And yet, the FBI received this information from this confidential source.
And it seems pretty clear they didn't even share it with the Department of Justice saying, hey, this needs to be looked in.
This needs to be further investigated.
It's really, really stunning.
And I hope that the committee continues to push forward on this and to bring forth witnesses to find out what is actually going on at FBI headquarters.
How long have you known about this particular allegation, this specific allegation?
Well, the specific allegation as it regards Ukraine goes back numerous years.
The existence of this document is relatively new to me.
But here's the power of it, Sean.
This document is completely consistent with other reporting that we know about Ukraine.
We know that how did Hunter Biden get the job at Burisma?
He got it four weeks after his father was appointed by Barack Obama as the point person on U.S. policy towards Ukraine.
In other words, he's the guy that's going to make the decisions about who's getting aid money, what our apologies, our policies are going to be on energy policy, et cetera, et cetera.
So we know that Hunter got it four weeks after his dad was appointed.
He had no skills, no qualifications.
We know that he was getting $1 million a year.
We know based on the laptop that meetings were set up between Burisma officials to meet with Joe Biden, Vice President of the United States.
And now you have a document that says $5 million was sent to Joe Biden to Hunter Biden in exchange for a favor.
Those are not inconsistent.
If this document had occurred and we didn't know any of the other stuff, I'd be kind of suspicious because there's no supporting evidence.
It corroborates perfectly what we already know is part of the public record.
And that's why I think it's so powerful.
Eric, let's get your take.
Do you see it the same way?
Absolutely.
It's not as if everyone was surprised to learn that there's a possibility that the Bidens were being bribed by corrupt third world oligarchs in exchange for favors from the then Vice President of the United States.
This is exactly consistent with everything that's been reported, that we've reported, and that the trail of information over the last five years has continued to point to.
I would say, Sean, that the amount of evidence is so big, even Linda couldn't miss it with a shotgun, but I wouldn't go that far.
By the way, you'd be surprised.
There was a time before Mantis X that she couldn't hit the side of a barn.
Go ahead.
But I would say that the good news is that I think the House Republicans are maybe a little bit more precise with their aim, and they're clearly diligent and persistent in their efforts.
And that's one of the reasons why I think we should be, I think, encouraged.
I know people get so tired of hearing more Hunter Biden news and they want to know, but when will anyone be arrested?
When will anything actually come if the justice system and the law enforcement are so corrupt, have they got away with it?
And they're certainly right to think that because to Peter's point, and to your point, we do have two systems of justice.
If Donald Trump is being indicted next week over allegations that he has mishandled classified documents, but we now have known for five plus years that it was alleged that Joe Biden's been bribed by Ukraine, and we know that they were bribing his son, and the timing of his appointment to the Board of Parisma is consistent with the timing of his appointment to this joint venture with China.
I mean, everyone knows this is how you do business with the Biden.
You pay Hunter to get to Joe, and House Republicans continue to give piece of evidence after piece of evidence to show, no, and here's where the money was, and here's what the relationships were.
We think that subpoenas matter.
And the fact that they can say, hey, Chris Ray, you're going to be held in contempt unless you give us that document, that matters too.
So that's one reason why I think we should be encouraged because we're continuing to get more information.
Eventually, you know, unlike what happened in 2020 when big tech and the FBI was able to collude to suppress the information, we now have this information so Americans will be able to make an informed choice at the bio box in 2024.
Quick break more with Peter Schweitzer and Eric Eggers.
They're with the Government Accountability Institute.
More of their take on the other side, 800-941.
Sean, when we get to your calls as we continue.
The final hour of the Sean Hannity Show is up next.
It's Conservative Solutions.
All right, we continue now with the Government Accountability Institute's Peter Schweitzer and Eric Eggers are with us.
People now don't believe there's equal justice.
Now, what's interesting about the timing of all of this is we have two ongoing House investigations, one by the House Judiciary Committee, and that's by Jim Jordan, looking into whether the DOJ has been weaponized and the FBI has been politicized.
I think the answer to both is absolutely.
I do believe that the Republican effort now moving forward to defund the FBI is a real effort.
I think the fact that they're planning to build a new FBI headquarters twice the size of the Pentagon is not going to happen.
If Republicans win elections, they're not going to allow that to be paid for.
And I think there's got to be a top-to-bottom analysis of what the hell is going on there, considering they have put their cinder blocks on the scales of not one, not two, but now it's looking like even three presidential elections.
Yeah, no, Sean, you're absolutely right.
And let's remember when Jim Comey gave that press conference and said no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute this case.
He was completely out of line.
That's not the role of an FBI director.
The FBI is supposed to investigate, turn it over to GOJ.
Prosecutors there are supposed to make the decision.
The fact that the FBI director was giving his quote-unquote legal opinion about prosecuting the case was completely out of line.
Plus, the fact that, remember, how those documents were handled.
Hillary Clinton had this private server.
She had a private email account.
She was doing official business on that email account, transferring classified documents.
And then when this was pointed out, they didn't go in.
The FBI didn't go in and seize that material.
Hillary Clinton and her lawyer said they went through the emails and decided which ones were classified official and which ones were personal.
That, again, is completely out of line.
The large issue here is that we are finally, I think, turning the corner on recognizing the role that FBI senior leadership, because I distinguish them from the rank-and-file FBI employees who I think are very diligent.
The FBI leadership has tipped the scales.
They are playing a political game.
And I think that has now been acknowledged.
And if you look at the decline of trust in American institutions, whether it's the media, it's at an all-time low, Congress, very, very low.
Very few institutions have fallen as hard and as far as the FBI.
That's a terrible thing, but it's been brought about because of the leadership at the FBI and the fact that they have been cozy with the political establishment.
And one of the things we honestly ought to start looking at, Sean, is moving FBI headquarters outside of Washington, D.C. Something seems to happen to people when they move into that building.
They become part of the political culture in D.C. that turns them into political animals.
It happened with J. Edgar Hoover.
It's happening today.
So I say, let's move the FBI somewhere out of Washington, D.C., so they can function as the law enforcement intelligence agency they're supposed to be, rather than this political institution.
Yeah, last word, Eric.
We got about 30 seconds.
No, I think he's exactly right.
And I think it's important to just kind of step back and have a perspective on this.
It shouldn't be okay that foreign entities are allowed to pay the family of the then vice president and still pay the family of the president, not the least of which comes from our greatest geopolit.
It shouldn't be okay that our law enforcement entities like the FBI are able to decide which information to suppress and which investigation to pursue as it relates to presidential candidates.
But that's exactly the world we live in.
And that's one of the reasons why it's so important that you need to highlight it.
But I think it's important that people keep a kid, get your perspective on this.
None of this is okay.
And I'm glad the House Republicans are doing something about it.
All right.
We appreciate you both, Peter Schweitzer and Eric Edgars with the Government Accountability Institute.
Honestly, they were way ahead of the curve.
2018, Secret Empire is launched right here on this radio show, my TV show.
Now, you know, here we are all these years later, and Congress is finally catching up with them.
The wheels of government and justice move ever so slowly.
Unless your name is Trump, then they move at the speed of light.
Anyway, thank you both.
800-941, Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
Our friends at the Tunnel to Towers Foundation deliver on their promise every day to do good, never forget the sacrifices of America's greatest heroes, what they have done for us.
Heroes like Marine Corps Corporal Seth Rasmussen.
Now, Seth was one of five Marines killed in a training accident when his Osprey aircraft crashed in California.
He was only 21 years old.
He's survived by his wife and his high school sweetheart, Avery, and their infant son.
Now, Tunnel to Towers reached out to Avery within days of Seth's death to tell her she would receive a mortgage-free home.
Avery did not have to worry about where she and her son were going to live or how she would pay for it because of the financial security and the support provided by the Tunnel to Towers.
Now, they have helped over 1,000 military and first responder families navigate the worst times by removing the burden of a mortgage payment.
So, they only can do it with your generosity.
They're not getting government money.
They're asking all of us, please join us here at Team Hannity and commit to 11 bucks a month so they can continue this great work.
Go to their website.
It's the letter T, the number two, the letter T.org.
The letter T, the number two, the letter T.org for the Tunnel to Towers Foundation.
▲
Export Selection