All Episodes
Previous Next
June 15, 2023 - Sean Hannity Show
31:30
Get Trump! - June 14th, Hour 2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is an iHeart Podcast.
We're coming to your city.
This is the final battle.
With you at my side, we will demolish the deep state.
We will drive out the globalists.
We will cast out the communists.
We will throw off the sick political class that hates our country.
He cannot articulate the economy the way you just did.
Yeah, but I don't think he's capable.
I know he's capable.
I see results.
God bless you all.
Let's go.
Let's go late and let the world.
Let's get it done.
Freedom is back in style.
Lucentate.
The new Sean Hannity Show.
More behind the scenes information on breaking news and more bold, inspired solutions for America.
All right, our two Sean Hannity show.
Toll-free, it's 800-941-Sean.
If you want to be a part of the program, so Donald Trump goes back to Bedminster after the arrangement yesterday, 37 charges, 31 basically of the same charges, what we call stacking charges against an individual, followed by the other six.
And the question is, you know, what legal vulnerability exists here for the president?
The president went back to Bedminster and he addressed a crowd, talked about this being a political persecution, how Joe Biden will be remembered as the most corrupt president in history, and then going on talking about the $5 million allegation in the 1023 form that Christopher Wray has been ever so reluctant to hand over to the House Oversight Committee and James Comer and Senator Chuck Grassley.
Let me play these for you.
Today we witnessed the most evil and heinous abuse of power in the history of our country.
Very sad thing to watch.
A corrupt sitting president had his top political opponent arrested on fake and fabricated charges of which he and numerous other presidents would be guilty right in the middle of a presidential election in which he is losing very badly.
This is called election interference and yet another attempt to rig and steal a presidential election.
More importantly, it's a political persecution like something straight out of a fascist or communist nation.
This day will go down in infamy and Joe Biden will forever be remembered as not only the most corrupt president in the history of our country, but perhaps even more importantly, the president who together with a band of his closest thugs, misfits, and Marxists tried to destroy American democracy.
But they will fail and we will win bigger and better than ever before.
The FBI, Twitter files, and so much more.
It's all been a battle of disinformation, one thing after the other, and all to protect the radical left misfits.
It's also no coincidence that these charges against me came down the very same day.
Evidence revealed Joe Biden took a $5 million bribe from Ukraine.
Took a $5 million bribe.
But the FBI and the Justice Department don't even want to talk about it.
They showed something on television tonight.
It had zero time on the three major networks, zero.
But my impeachment had almost all the time.
I think I had 351 minutes.
They had no minutes.
All right, joining us now, the author of the bestseller, Get Trump, Alan Dershowitz, is with us.
A lot to get to.
Let's talk first about the 37 charges against the president as you read the indictment.
You know, it's very interesting because, you know, you get different points of view.
I'm not so sure this is the slam dunk everybody seems to think it is.
Well, compared to the New York case, it's a slam dunk.
But anything, even a jaywalking ticket would be a slam dunk compared to the New York case, the Bragg case, which was based neither on law nor fact.
This one has that one, I wouldn't call it a smoking gun, but it's a gun with fingerprints on it, and that is the waving of a document.
We don't know what was in the document, the document isn't in evidence, in front of a writer and saying, I could have declassified this, but I didn't.
That the other side is claiming, the prosecution is claiming, is an admission that he knew he had in his possession material that he did not classify.
So that's going to be the hardest piece of evidence.
So let me ask you, Professor, this question, because, you know, if you turn on TV, I mean, we already know the media hates Trump.
They lied about him for three long years as it relates to Trump-Russia collusion that never happened.
We just get the Durham report back.
We know all of that's false.
You know, the media that was so outraged that the president in a phone call with Zelensky in Ukraine asking and demanding that he be responsible with U.S. taxpayer dollars that the president's likely to send over, that was a big deal.
You know, that was the hearsay whistleblower case that led to, you know, impeachment one.
But meanwhile, we had at that time Joe Biden on tape bragging that he leveraged $1 billion to demand in six hours that a prosecutor in Ukraine get fired.
And we now know that prosecutor was fired.
Son of a bee, they did it.
And the guy that they fired was investigating Hunter Biden and Burisma.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I mean, that investigation should have gone forward.
It should go forward.
We should see the documents that people try to suppress.
And we should see them in redacted form, obviously, to protect the identity of people who might get hurt.
But we have to see those documents.
We can't, this whole process hasn't been transparent enough.
We haven't seen enough of the documents relating to Hunter Biden and Joe Biden.
And we are not going to see the trial of Donald Trump unless the judge changes the views and allows us to see this most important trial of many of our lifetimes.
And so we have to have televising of trials of this kind, and we have to have disclosure of documents of that kind.
We don't have trials by secret in the United States.
So when the media and their montage go about what about ism, what about ism, what about ism.
And I'll play it for you.
And so what about ism?
I have another word for it.
I have other words for it, and that is equal justice under the law and equal application of our laws, Professor.
I agree with you.
I wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal about six months ago in praise of WhatsAppism, saying it's the best argument you can make.
You can have to ask the question, what about Hillary Clinton?
What about Sandy Berger?
What about Joe Biden?
What about Vice President Pence?
That's the essence of eco-protection.
What about ism?
And nobody should knock that.
And I attacked Hillary Clinton for wearing a what's about ism hat, as if to mock that argument.
That argument is the essence of equal protection.
Remember that Jack Smith got in front of a television audience and said there's one law and it applies equally to all.
How would he know?
He was only asked to prosecute and investigate Donald Trump.
He wasn't given the mandate to look at all the problems that occur when former officials leave office and take documents with them.
That should have been the mandate.
He then could have looked at all the cases and decide which are the most culpable, which are the least culpable, and make a comparative what about it decision.
Well, because I think equal application is the proper term for what about ism.
I agree with you.
Equal application and equal justice under the law, those are supposed to be bedrock principles.
At least I was taught so.
Let me play for you.
Let's take a look back and then you tell me if the comparison is justified.
This is James Comey's infamous July 2016 press conference that ends with no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute.
Now, he's talking about the 30,000 emails of Hillary Clinton that he had access to.
He's not talking about the 3,000 emails that were deleted with bleach pit and devices destroyed with hammers and SIM cards removed.
And that to me would show intent.
He says at the end of this, you know, no prosecutor would prosecute.
Well, we couldn't find intention.
Wasn't it Hillary's intention to delete the 33,000 emails by having somebody apply bleach pit?
Wasn't there intention to destroy evidence, destroying BlackBerries and iPhones with hammers?
Let me play for you.
Finally, with respect to our recommendation to the Department of Justice, in our system, the prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence that the FBI helps collect.
Although we don't normally make public our recommendations to the prosecutors, we frequently make recommendations and engage in productive conversations with prosecutors about what resolution may be appropriate given the evidence.
In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.
Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.
Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before deciding whether to bring charges.
There are obvious considerations like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent.
Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person's actions and how similar situations have been handled in the past.
In looking back at our investigations into the mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts.
All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information, or vast quantities of information exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct, or indications of disloyalty to the United States or efforts to obstruct justice.
We do not see those things here.
All right, so is that equal justice under the law, Professor?
No, because we don't see any indication of disloyalty to the United States.
You know, they use the term Espionage Act.
That should be struck from this trial.
There's no allegation of here.
And the issue of willfulness, of course, we know that Hillary Clinton, who I know, is a friend of mine and I support it.
Of course the destruction was willful.
Her claim, of course, is that there was no classified information there.
It was her hairdresser appointments, etc.
But we have to take a word to that.
Once you destroy evidence, there's no way of challenging your assertion.
You know, people say it's always in the cover-up, but many cover-ups work.
And it's conceivable, of course, that this was a cover-up that worked, that there were many, many classified documents that were destroyed claiming that they were hairdresser appointments.
We'll never know.
Now, there wouldn't be enough to get a prosecution because you have to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
But I'm not sure there's enough here to infer the kind of willfulness that the statute requires.
The willfulness the statute requires isn't just that they knew they had classified material.
There has to be some evil intention, purpose behind the class behind the holding of the material in order to meet the Hillary Clinton standard.
And, you know, it's hard to find it here.
Yes, maybe he knew he had it.
Maybe he thought he declassified it.
Maybe he was wrong about that, but we don't convict people for making honest mistakes.
Well, then we now have another whatabout-ism.
I mean, there were four separate locations where top secret classified documents were found in Joe Biden's possession, his home with his precious garage and Corvette, his beach home, the Penn Biden Center, University of Delaware.
Nobody was raided there, just like nobody raided Hillary.
They only raided Mar-a-Lago.
And now we have all these allegations, and I knew it was a big deal at the time when Joe Biden demanded that, well, said he would leverage $1 billion taxpayer dollars to get a prosecutor fired in Ukraine, who turned out it was investigating his son who had no experience by his own admission.
He said it on Good Morning America and was being paid a fortune.
Now, why would a vice president ever want a Ukrainian prosecutor fired?
That doesn't make sense to me, Professor.
Number one.
And number two, now we're hearing that they had this 1023 form by somebody, a credible intel source of the FBI, because they paid the guy hundreds of thousands of dollars.
And the FBI has been trying to keep it from the House Oversight Committee.
Well, it certainly was at least as credible as the information that was the basis for a FISA warrant on the other side.
So there has to be equal justice, not only in prosecution, but in investigation.
And we must see that, those 302 forms, we must see the forms that make the most serious allegation possible that the Vice President of the United States now president received money in exchange for doing favors.
I hope the information is false.
I think it may be false, but I need to know for sure, and so do you, and so do all Americans.
And so we have to be transparent.
All right, quick break more with Alan Dershowitz.
Professor Dershowitz's book, Bestseller, Get Trump, 800-941.
Sean, your call is also coming up as we roll along today.
All right, we continue with Professor Alan Dershowitz as we discuss all the happenings involving Donald Trump and the Biden family syndicate.
Let me play Ted Cruz with a deputy FBI director yesterday grilling this guy on this.
Last month, a whistleblower brought to light the existence in the FBI of a report in FD 1023 in which the informant alleges that President Biden and his family members engaged in a $5 million bribery scheme during his time as vice president.
Deputy Director Abadi, is it true that the FBI has a report making those allegations?
I'm not going to comment on that, Senator.
And why is that?
I'm just not going to comment on information we've received, investigations around.
Do you owe an obligation to the American people to be candid about evidence of corruption by the President of the United States?
This is an area that I'm not going to get into with you, Senator.
I understand you don't want to, and that's why people are mad at the FBI because you're stonewalling and covering up serious allegations of evidence of corruption from the president.
So in warp speed, they indict Trump.
They've had the Hunter Biden laptop since 2019, Professor.
Yeah, and Ted Cruz, very familiar because he used to cross-examine me that way when I was his professor at Harvard Law School.
I would have paid to see that.
He was one of the most interesting students you could ever have because he wouldn't back down.
And like some Americans today, some students in the class didn't like him because he was being tough on the professor.
I loved it.
I want students to be tough on me.
And I think senators have to be tough on members of the FBI.
And Ted is 100% right.
You may have to redact.
You may have to protect the names of sources and methods.
Yep, agreed.
I agree completely on you may have to do that, but they should have to give in to the demand of oversight.
That's Congress's job.
Anyway, the book is called Get Trump.
Professor Alan Dershow.
It's great to have you, sir.
My pleasure.
Thank you.
All right, Jim Jordan coming up, 800-941-Sean, our number.
If you want to be a part of the program, you know, it was interesting if you watch, and I wasn't watching, but heard about it and learned about it, thankfully, from my Cracker Jack staff on radio and TV.
But, you know, it's funny, Anderson Cooper, we won't be taking Donald Trump's bedminster speech.
He's only the top leading candidate for the Republican Party and the nomination.
No, we're going to monitor to see if there's anything newsworthy.
And then of all places, with all people, you have the biggest conspiracy theorist on TV, Rachel Manow.
We're not going to carry remarks by the newly indicted former president live.
Now they're making a news determination.
Same people that lied day in and day out about Russia collusion that never happened.
And in spite of the Inspector General's report, Michael Horowitz, in spite of now the Durham report saying that Operation Crossfire Hurricane never, ever should have been open, they just keep going forward, never apologizing, never retracting, never making corrections, never pledging to do a better job than lying to the American public for years on end.
And, well, just listen.
As we watch Donald Trump attempt to turn his arrest and indictment into some sort of campaign commercial, the folks in the control room, I don't need to see any more of that.
He's trying to turn it into a spectacle, into a campaign ad.
That's enough of that.
We've seen it already.
And today, President Trump sided with Russia over not just the intelligence agencies of the United States, but also the people of the United States.
We are looking at the possibility that the president of the United States and those around him during an election campaign colluded with a hostile foreign power to undermine the basis of our democracy.
This is evidence of willingness to commit collusion.
We knew heading into this that he was planning to make these remarks.
We are prepared for his pre-fundraiser remarks tonight to again be essentially a Trump campaign speech.
Because of that, we do not intend to carry these remarks live.
As we have said before in these circumstances, there is a cost to us as a news organization to knowingly broadcast untrue things.
What would change the world is if, you know, Russia was interfering in the election and they weren't doing it on their own and he was in on it.
We are here to bring you the news.
It hurts our ability to do that if we live broadcast what we fully expect in advance to be a litany of lies and false accusations, no matter who says them.
After all the worry, we are actually about to find out if Russia maybe has something on the new president.
We're about to find out if the new president of our country is going to do what Russia wants.
We haven't ever had to reckon with the possibility that somebody has ascended to the presidency of the United States to serve the interests of another country rather than our own.
What's the corrective to that?
How do you remedy that?
These are no longer hypothetical questions.
This is where we are.
We will not carry his remarks live.
If he says anything newsworthy, we promise we will turn that right around and bring it back to you.
Oh, amazing.
You know, wow, this is the cost to us as a news organization if we promote untrue things day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year.
And they didn't seem to care then.
Amazing.
Now, all of a sudden, anything Donald Trump says.
Now, they have this other little problem, and that's all things Biden's.
They're not reporting anything about Joe Biden.
They won't even acknowledge that he's a cognitive wreck because they don't have any honesty in them.
I mean, they are just a bunch of left-wing propagandist hacks, period.
Now, we got that story correct.
And you know what?
We were way ahead of the curve on the issue of Joe and Hunter and Burisma, way ahead of the curve on the financial dealings with the Biden family and China and Russia and all these other countries.
Is there a reason that the Keystone exile pipeline was shut down while simultaneously granting a waiver to Putin to build his Nord Stream 2 pipeline?
Any connection?
I'd like to know.
Interesting minds would like to know.
Is there any connection between the fact that the communist Chinese can spy all over the United States with their bus-size balloon and no consequences at all whatsoever?
Or confronting in international airspace our fighter jets or confronting in the Pacific or the South China Sea our Navy fleet in international waters, or saber-rattling and warning the U.S. of obliteration if we dare to get involved when they invade inevitably, which I think is inevitable, Taiwan?
No, nothing.
That's the mob.
That's the media mob.
They are not journalists.
They are not even close to journalists.
They're not even smart opinionated hosts.
All they are is left-wing socialist propagandists.
Anyway, let's say hi to Tim in California.
What's up, Tim?
How are you?
Hey, Sean, what's going on?
Thanks for taking my call.
Yes, sir.
All right.
So you didn't like the Gavin Newsom interview.
Why?
You know, I just wish you would have pushed him a little harder.
You know, he's has stolen, laundered billions for this.
Okay, what do you tell me the questions that you would have liked that I had asked?
Because I did push him hard on the mass migration out of California.
I did push him hard on the tax rates in California.
I did push him hard on sanctuary state status.
I did push him hard on the homelessness issue.
I did push him hard on COVID issues and whether it was hypocrisy.
What did I miss?
You know, I just think he could have gotten into it a little bit more.
You know, you're right.
You did say all those things.
And I will say that I don't know.
He kind of snaked through them pretty well with his PC, you know, good hair.
Do you want me to interrupt him and say liar, liar, pants on fire like CNN tried to do with Trump?
Well, CNN won against Trump.
Oh, no.
CNN did not win against Trump.
No.
The head of CNN got fired as a result of that interview.
No, they didn't win.
But we need to stop being so nice to these politicians because they know what to say.
I live in the future.
Well, then there's nobody on the other side that will ever sit down with me and have at least a reasonable exchange if I'm just going to go in there, berate them, yell at them, scream at them, accuse them, and not give them time to talk.
I mean, you know, I tried to explain that at the top of the interview, how the interview was going to go.
I promised him I'd give him time to answer, but I would challenge him with the issues that face California and the differences.
You know, he has this public spat going on with Ronda Santos between Florida and what's going on in California.
I think, you know, the migration numbers alone, you know, you're losing nearly 800 Californians a day that are leaving your state forever.
About a thousand new people are moving into Florida every day.
You know, is there a reason for that?
I think the reasons are obvious.
13.3% is the highest income tax rate in the country.
He says, well, it's a regressive tax.
And I said, well, 1% pays 50%.
That's true.
But that's true of the federal income tax.
Half of wage earners, they don't pay a penny in federal income tax in this country.
Very true.
Yeah.
And, you know, I just I'm of that mindset right now where I think we need to be a little bit more aggressive with our politicians because.
Well, then why don't you leave California?
I'm trying, dude.
I'm trying.
You know, it's, I got a family of six.
I'm sorry, I got six kids.
You know, great job here.
But around, it is, you know, we're decaying.
Our roads are decaying.
Our morality is decaying.
Businesses are leaving.
Did you see the list of every major corporate headquarters that I laid out in that interview that's left California?
Oh, I did.
And, you know, pretty scary, if you're asking me.
Oh, I'm terrified of it.
And I, again, Sean, even here in Orange County, this place is turning into a hellhole.
Every day, every day, we're being bombarded by homeless coming onto our private properties, messing with public properties, harassing us for money.
And plenty of these people, you know, they do have problems.
Some of these people actually choose to live like this.
And they'll tell you that.
They're like, yeah, this is way too easy.
And a number of these people, I mean, I wish you would have asked the governor, like, what about your rehab programs?
How come you guys are recruiting all these people to come to rehab in California?
And then their insurance runs out and you guys kick them out.
Well, I played, I made him look at the tape that he made in 2018 and his 10-year plan to solve the homelessness problem in the state.
It didn't work.
Yeah, and it's not going to work because all of these nonprofits, it's not in their best interest to fix the problem.
They lose their jobs if they do their job and fix the problem.
So it's never going to happen.
It's always going to get kicked down the cans are always going to get kicked down the road.
And it's business, just like this trans industry.
It's all big business.
It's all about laundering public funds and siphoning them where they want it to happen.
And that's just kind of what we see.
I mean, we have people here where I work.
They'll come onto the property.
I'm like, what's going on?
I just got kicked out of rehab.
I don't know where to go.
Oh, man.
You can't be here.
You know, because it sounds dangerous.
I don't know how young your kids are, but that wouldn't work on my property.
I'll tell you right now.
I'd have bells and sirens and whistles blaring and spotlights going on all over the property.
But, you know, look, I hear what you're saying.
There is a better way of life out there.
Maybe you won't need to make as much money, but you'll have a better quality of life.
I don't know what's your profession.
What do you do?
I work in education.
Okay, there's jobs and education all around the country.
Yeah, I work at a private Catholic school.
And, you know, I know you can't, I mean, most of the time.
How many years do you invested in your pension?
I don't have a pension.
I have a 401k.
I've been working at this school for 15 years.
All the more reason you're in a position that you could move and get a teaching job.
Good teachers are in great demand all over the country.
But what I'm trying to say is my mission is here.
You know, this is where God has put me.
And one more question.
I wish you would have asked the governor, how did you get away with promising money to a certain group of people to buy votes without spending it?
You mean the money's before the election?
I did not get to that question.
It's a little more complicated, but we'll save it for another day.
Tim, I wish you the best.
And if this is where God has you in your life, I'm nobody to argue or dispute God's plan.
All right, quick break, right back.
We'll continue.
800-941-Sean, our number.
Back to your calls, Jim Jordan at the top of the next hour, and much more as we continue.
Let's get back to our busy phones.
Cy is in Mississippi.
Cy, how are you?
Glad you called.
Hey, Mr. Henry.
Thanks so much for taking my phone call.
What's going on?
Well, I had a, actually wanted to know your thoughts on something.
First of all, I love what you have done for everyone that listens to you.
I listen to you every day.
And I think of you as more of a teacher rather than someone who just speaks whatever he thinks.
And I truly do the best I can to learn from you.
And I just wanted to get your thoughts as to what you think this fleeting thought I had a few days ago.
With what's going on right now with the indictments and such, personally, I do not believe, and I hate to say this, that Trump can beat Biden in a general election.
I simply just don't think he can.
And you feel that the indictment has made his chances more difficult?
Absolutely not.
No, actually, factors for that have existed before then.
Too many to count, but one major one is that since past, I'd say, 12 to 15 months, polls have shown that a vast majority of Americans simply don't want to see a Biden-Trump rematch.
So we all know that the independents are going to sway this election.
Listen, let me jump the gun here because I hear where you're coming from, okay?
The issues that I promise you regarding both Trump and Biden, there's going to be a lot that happens between now and November of 2024, assuming that they're both on the ticket.
And in terms of indictments as it relates to Donald Trump, and I think there will be more, I would not be surprised to see if there are indictments even as early as this week with Hunter Biden.
And I do believe James Comer has really dug deep into the weeds here.
And I think Joe Biden is in far greater legal jeopardy than anybody knows.
That's all I'll say at this time.
Let's wait and see.
Okay?
And of course, that's a hypothetical, but I just wanted to make this quick point.
I served in the military for 10 years, and we had a way of thinking where you want your enemy to be televisioned.
And in my mind, over the past few years, the media has very much focused on Trump, evil Trump, go after Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump.
That's it.
They do that because it covers up the issues the American people actually care about.
It keeps everyone in a state of chaos.
And it's always been my experience that during times like this, normally people vote for the incumbent.
That's just the way people think.
I got your whole rap.
Let's wait.
I mean, you're not listening.
Let's hear.
Let's wait and see what the issues are when we get to the point where we're going to have a primary and then a general election.
There's going to be a lot that happens.
I'm telling you, the contours of this race are going to shift a lot.
Anyway, I do appreciate your call, though.
800-941-Sean, our number, Congressman Jim Jordan at the top of the hour.
▲
Export Selection