All Episodes
Previous Next
July 7, 2023 - Sean Hannity Show
32:16
John Solomon - July 6th, Hour 1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is an iHeart Podcast.
Well, we're coming to your city Gonna play our guitars and sing you a country song We'll all be environed.
High Little Jail.
And if you want a little banging yin yang, come along.
Mr. President, why did you get millions of borrowers false hope?
You've dated doubted your own authority here in the past.
I didn't give any false hope.
I didn't give bars false hope, but the Republicans snatched away the hope that they were given, and it's real.
The field test said cocaine.
Yeah.
Now these more conclusive lab tests.
Yeah.
I would like to know blow by blow who is responsible for this.
Too soon.
There's no too soon.
Freedom is back in style.
Welcome to the revolution.
Yeah, we're coming to your city Gonna play our guitars and sing you a country song Sean Hannity Show.
More behind-the-scenes information on breaking news and more bold, inspired solutions for America.
Music.
Hey everybody, welcome to the Sean Hannity Show.
This is Jay Sekyello and Jordan Secure.
We are sending in for our good friend Sean, and it's great to be with you.
Of course, Jordan and I head up the American Center for Law and Justice.
We have a daily radio program ourselves at noon on stations around the country and get information about what we do at ACLJ.org.
That's ACLJ.org.
And you may remember us from, of course, we've been on Sean's program many, many times.
But of course, our work for President Trump during the impeachment, during Bob Mueller, during the four years of fake investigations that were going on.
That's right.
And some of our work that is just uh popping up today has been a FOIA that we filed, a Freedom of Information Act, the ACLJ filed back in 2021, August of 2021.
What was happening then?
The Bosch withdrawal from Afghanistan that led to the death of 13 Americans.
And we filed a FOIA with a number of government agencies, including the Department of Defense, uh Secret uh the State Department, and uh the uh SITCOM, the U.S. Central Command.
And just today, so almost two years later, July of 2023, we got about 200 documents, some which were classified that have been declassified for our review from these various agencies.
Interesting enough, what we were focusing in on is what were you doing in the preparation and the lead up to this withdrawal that led to, again, this kind of crazy atmosphere.
Remember how out of control it was.
Leaving our own our own allies stranded in Afghanistan Americans as well.
Americans got killed by ISIS K. It was chaos.
Well, what we know is they pr they sent us a document.
This is unreal, folks, on the Kabul Stability Review, which was done in June of that year of 2021, June 30th, so very close to with the withdrawal, where they had they thought it was a three-stage process for this was a classified document until we we uncovered it and they had to release it to us.
Three-stage process for the Taliban to take uh Kabul, but of course they thought it could take months.
It took days before, and they talked about how eventually the Taliban will control the roads in and out.
Remember, they controlled all of the entrance and exit points within hours to the airport within hours of the announcement of the U.S. withdrawal.
So it led to those chaotic scenes, Americans being killed, uh, allies left behind, but then we've got other documents because we asked, what were you planning?
Now we didn't say like what were you planning to do?
We've been planning as like to keep people safe and military.
They sent us all these, these were classified documents about how they were going to clean up the waste at Balgram Air Force Base, and that's what they were focused on at the Department of Defense and the Pentagon and Central Command was clean up of hazardous waste.
That's what they were having our middle women in the military do.
Trade killers were acting like garbage men.
I am holding in my hand.
If you could see it, you can't, but if you could hear it, you can.
There it is.
I'm not kidding you, folks.
An environmental site closure survey performed by and prepared by the Department of Defense, marked classification marked secret, NATO, and then other uh country designates.
And this is what the environmental impact study was gonna be on our removal of our troops out of Afghanistan and what our troops were gonna do on the ground to mitigate environmental hazards.
Now, I gotta tell you something.
You're in the middle of a war.
The last thing our troops should be thinking about is environmental hazards.
We're trying to get people out, trying to get our own people out.
But let me tell you what the ACLJ did here.
I think this is really important for you to understand at the American Center for Law and Justice, and that's why we encourage you to go to ACLJ.org and check it out.
We filed a lawsuit against these various departments.
And we filed a lawsuit to find out what was the planning for this disaster that embarrassed America on the world stage, which it did.
And we had a fight 'em in court.
The Department of Justice represents all these governmental agencies.
So we're fighting the Biden administration in court and lo and behold, we get court orders requiring documents to be delivered and when they are delivered they are breathtaking in scope.
Yeah, I mean this is again it shows you too you've got to stay on you can't just you don't file these and get answers in two months.
It takes organizations like the ACLJ that have been around the block and continue to go around the block a significant amount of time before the government throws everything they can at you of course some of these documents were classified wrongly.
You know we talked about we've talked about overclassification a lot.
I've done it on Sean's broadcast before that how they basically classify everything just so Americans don't see it because they don't want to they don't want Americans to see their mistakes so when they get something wrong like the when will the Taliban take over uh Kabul they don't want you to see it so they market classified or the fact that they were wasting all their time talking about could they work with the Afghan national environmental protection agency.
How effective do you think that you need to say that again I don't like our environmental protection agency.
Remember what happened in East Palestine.
Okay, so we don't have a very good EPA either but how do you think the Afghan national environmental protection agency was well not good enough for the U.S. military they said unfortunately we can't rely on them to do it because they don't have the expertise or equipment.
Well they got a lot of equipment now though but it's mostly military equipment ours to the tunes of billions of dollars.
Yeah people don't understand that we're trying to get to all that information too folks the Afghan rebels if you will the and and the Taliban have become one of the largest arms dealers in the world and who what arms are they trading?
The ones we left behind in Afghanistan with this botched withdrawal.
Yeah I always remind people what it looked like when the Taliban did their first press conference after taking Kabul.
They were in kind of an ornate hotel ballroom but they were dressed in their usual the leaders in their robes and that's not a that's not unusual.
But their fighters were not dressed in robes holding AK-47s.
They were in full-on U.S. tactical gear with night vision goggles really complicated and and uh communications equipment they weren't holding AK-47s they were holding U.S. made automatic weapons they were decked out in military gear.
So the Taliban, just from that instance, doesn't look like the same terrorist group or governing group, however you want to call them extremist group that they were when we were at war with them.
So they've got now the best equipment that the world has that great at flying helicopters.
We saw that before but they can sell them people who know how to and they can also sell the technology to our enemies who want to know how it works and not just how the helicopter works how the how the uh technology within we could have destroyed all of that.
Or we should have had kept troops there which was the Trump plan and kept Bagram Air Force Base engaged in no blame Trump for the withdrawal.
They say he's the one who got us into withdrawal but he's never planned to have zero troops on the ground.
We were never going to give up Bagram it was too close to China's nuclear facilities so it had strategic uh importance outside of Afghanistan and it would have been a check because it's the major airports the major artery in and out of Afghanistan the Taliban can only do so much if they know you control the in and out and they have no other way to to move people around in their major cities.
So at the American Center for Law and Justice, so you understand it's a public interest law firm where we we're kind of the conservative counterway to the ACLU and other groups.
I mean there's a lot more groups now than there used to be and we have a government accountability project that operates with our government affairs operation.
Our offices are right next to the Supreme Court of the United States in Washington DC.
Sean has broadcast out of there before and it's a great office with a great location and great staff And what that office does is we are a checkmate to the Department of Justice on some of these policies that we're going to be talking about, including we have John Solomon coming up from just the news dealing with the Hunter Biden investigation, the whistleblower investigation, Senator Marsha Blackburn is going to be coming on talking about the situation with China.
We're going to talk about the Supreme Court.
You've got the disinformation.
We're going to get into that in a moment.
I want to talk about this disinformation czar that they were going to put in place, and now you've got a court saying that the Biden White House put their thumb on the scale of free speech.
We're going to get into that.
We've got a great show and a great lineup.
But I want you to let you know again, if you want information about us, ACLJ.org.
That's ACLJ.org.
And it's a great way to stay engaged on all these issues.
And we do a broadcast called Seculo.
It's on a thousand radio stations around the country every day at noon.
We encourage you to listen to that broadcast and stay engaged and follow Jordan at Jordan Seculo at J Seculo at ACLJ.
A great way to stay engaged with us.
So that was one aspect of what our government affairs office and government over accountability project did to get to this information.
Literally, folks, environmental impact studies were number one on how to get the withdrawal complete in Afghanistan.
Now I want to talk for a moment about this the Department of Justice just announced moments ago that they are officially appealing to the Court of Appeals on this uh judge's ruling that said that the White House, the Biden White House, put their fingers on the scale of free speech by censoring and going to the social media companies and telling them, hey, don't run this story, don't run that story, don't have this group's uh information shared that because it's uh misinformation.
Complete violation of the First Amendment, total violation of the First Amendment.
And I would know, because the cases they relied on, I argued at the U.S. Supreme Court, some of them in the nineties, some of them even in the 2000s in the last ten years.
Here's the thing, folks.
It was the government telling the social media platforms whose speech to promote and who's not to.
And the judge got it right when he said the White House engaged in viewpoint discrimination.
And the last viewpoint discrimination case I argued at the Supreme Court, I won nine zero.
Not one justice, not the most conservative, not the most liberal, ruled against us.
They all ruled in our favor saying viewpoint discrimination is basically per se unconstitutional.
But this is what this administration's doing, and they don't hold back for a moment on this, Jordan.
That's why we're fighting him so aggressively.
No, so I mean, right when this case came out, the State Department announced that it canceled its regular meeting Wednesday.
Yeah, well, they had to because they'd be violating a court order.
That was with Facebook to discuss 2024 election preparations.
Why is the State Department dealing with 2024 election preparations?
Their job is to deal with foreign policy and negotiate with all the problems.
Why are they telling a social media company what to put up and not?
And it's not just Facebook.
The person at Facebook said they also presumed that similar meetings the State Department had scheduled with the other tech companies.
So they do this with all of them, we're also canceled.
Uh to go on with this, it wasn't just the State Department.
Also, the Department of Homeland Security, Cybersecurity, and Infrastructure Security Agency also canceled their meeting.
So there's more than one meeting going on weekly.
And those meetings have been canceled as far as we know.
Everything's been canceled, but because of that court order.
Now, we're gonna on the Court of Appeals, here's what's gonna happen.
The Department of Justice is gonna file a uh an appeal.
We will file what's called a friend of the court brief with the Court of Appeals, setting forth the position of what the American people think about this and what the Constitution says about this, which is it's protected speech.
And if you silence one viewpoint to the exclusion of another, it's called censorship.
It's called viewpoint discrimination.
And the government has to establish a compelling overriding interest to ever justify that.
And frankly, in 40 years of litigating at the Supreme Court, the government has never been able to provide a compelling governmental interest on this, ever.
Never.
And we know that the enemies that they were identifying here were Americans who just questioned the government.
Just question the government.
We have a right to do that.
Whether you think the questioning's wrong or right, bad, smart, stupid.
You're allowed to question the government.
And so they were coming in here and they're making enemies of Americans.
The judge wrote that the United States government seems to assumed a role similar to the Orwellian Ministry of Truth.
so this goes back to again this idea, which a lot of times conservatives, we get mocked for.
Oh, the government's not really doing that.
You're not really being targeted.
Multiple meetings got shut down by this court case, this district court decision.
Multiple meetings were shut down in Washington, D.C. to target and plan for how they were going to get out the mis the information they don't like, what they call misinformation, in the 2024 election cycle.
What on earth is the State Department getting involved in the 2024 election?
Folks, let me encourage you to go to ACLJ.org to find out what Jordan and I do uh in addition to our radio broadcast and our all of our other media.
Go to ACLJ.org.
It's a great way to stay engaged.
We've got a lot more coming up.
Our friend John Solomon with Just the News is going to join us.
You're listening to the Sean Hannity show.
Jordan Seculo, Jay Seculo hosting today.
We'll be back with more in a moment.
Hey everybody, welcome back to the Sean Hannity program.
By the way, this music you're hearing, that's the Jay Seculoband.
Sean plays a lot of our music, which we appreciate.
By the way, if you want to check the band out, go to Facebook, Jay Seculo Band, and there's a whole Facebook page there.
We do live concerts about five, six times a year.
Hey, we've been talking about uh we've got John Solomon coming up.
Jordan uh is hosting as well today, and we were talking about this ministry of uh disinformation and the putting the thumb on the scale of free speech and how that all works.
It's very interesting for us as constitutional lawyers to challenge these because the idea that the governments take if the government wants to speak as a speaker, it can get out whatever message it wants.
That's very different.
And they, by the way, the government department of justice tried to argue that in this particular case that it was just government speech, but they were putting their hands on the scale of of censorship by going to the platform providers to censor speech, not of theirs, but of third parties.
That you don't get to do.
I think the most Orwellian of all these moves, like the judge mentioned in this case, which has led to, I just want you to understand, these aren't just theories that the federal government's doing this.
They have canceled meetings in the Biden administration at the State Department today, and at Homeland Security with Meta.
They were gonna, which is the, you know, the Facebook parent company, which they were going to meet with uh yesterday they had meeting schedules.
They literally had to cancel those.
They think Homeland Security is also canceling their meetings.
They do monthly to tell these companies what information to suppress.
Like Mark Zuckerberg said, I think the craziest one of all has been the laptop, which you could see was real.
Like you knew it was real.
They told you it was fake.
They came out with an official message that this is fake, and then they went to Facebook and they went to Zuckerberg, and he confirmed it on Joe Rogan's show.
It said, Yeah, we so we dethrottled it.
Which means it looked like you were posting it to Facebook.
But you never really did.
But no one ever got to see it.
So you could you could post, it looks like it went there, but you might notice that no one commented, no one liked it, no one clicked on it, no one else shared it, because they limited and we're talking about it, he said a significant way how it could be seen.
Now that we made some money for our sponsors, let's go back to making the liberals crazy.
The handman is back on the radio right now.
Hey everybody, welcome back to the Sean Hannity program.
Jay Seculo and Jordan Seculo sitting in for Sean.
We're thrilled to be here.
We've got a lot to talk about.
John Solomon's going to be joining us in uh in a few minutes.
But before we do that, again, if if you're new to us, uh, we've been on Sean's Broad program a lot, been on Hannity TV a lot, good friends.
Uh, go to ACLJ.org.
You can find out about what we do at the American Center for Law and Justice, which is fighting for you against a lot of what this administration is doing.
We just had a big win we told you about uh about the Afghanistan withdrawal where they were looks like they were more concerned about the environment than getting Americans out, which and I guess we're not shocked at this point, and and so many other cases that we're involved in.
So ACLJ.org is a great place to find out about us, and we have a daily radio broadcast as well.
It's on uh noon Eastern time, about a thousand radio stations around the country.
Hunter Biden gets a uh tax deal or pleads out his tax case.
Uh that we'll find out what the judge does with that soon.
He had a great lawyer, by the way, I have to say this because uh I know his lawyer's a friend of mine, and he's a great lawyer.
His name is Abby Lowell.
He's one of the finest criminal defense lawyers in Washington, D.C., but there's been all these allegations swirling about whether the U.S. attorney Really had the authority that Merrick Gartland said he had, which was unlimited.
Basically, do whatever you want.
He even reportedly, uh, the U.S. attorney that was handling a case, David Weiss, was asking to get a special counsel status, and that was allegedly, again, denied.
So we have John Solomon.
We'll get into some of that information.
Yeah, that's right.
I mean, I want to read uh he did write a letter.
And see, this is where I think it's interesting, and we'll talk to John about uh who's joining us now.
He wrote a letter on June 30th, David Weiss to uh Jim Jordan, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and he said the whistleblower's allegation uh relate to a criminal investigation that's being prosecuted, so I can't get into everything, but uh he did say the Department of Justice did not retaliate against the whistleblower.
He also said that in my June 7th letter, he was reiterating that.
He said I've been granted ultimate authority over the matter, including responsibility for deciding where, when and whether to file charges, and they could have made those in uh both uh uh California or outside of Delaware and Washington, D.C. And if they didn't want to partner with him, he could have gotten special status, not special counsel status, but special status.
So he is denying.
Yes, the allegations.
We've got our good friend John Solomon, Justin News, who's been all over the story.
John, uh very important here.
What are you hearing?
Well, uh, listen, I think the the letter that was sent out late Friday night from David Weiss uh to the Hill has some important acknowledgments.
He acknowledged that he probably had to go to the Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. prosecutors, because that's the normal practice.
That's a very important thing because that corroborates what uh uh Gary Shapley had said in his testimony.
Uh he also uh said that he had the authority to bring uh the charges uh if those U.S. attorneys did not uh agree to bring the cases, which is what we have confirmed.
We've confirmed that those are there.
There's another problem.
There are multiple witnesses that say after the the U.S. attorneys in Los Angeles and DC turned down the cases, which David Weiss is not disputing, uh, that he told his prosecution team, including the agents, that he asked Merrick Garland to be upgraded to a special counsel, and he was turned down.
The letter very carefully does not address that allegation.
Now, there are eyewitnesses to this, at least six um I get uh Gary Shapley identified in his testimony.
I have been able to corroborate with the president.
John, have any of those witnesses come forward yet, the additional witnesses?
Two have, obviously, Gary Shapley and one of his deputies have already.
Uh my understanding is Congress is looking to interview the rest of them.
But the Justice Department, my Justice Department sources are not disputing that the Weiss made that comment.
They're not saying whether it actually happened.
They're saying let me say what I think the question is, John.
This is, you know, and and as you know, and we we're good friends and we worked together for a long time.
I'd represented you, and we work we're good friends.
Here's the issue that I think that it's on the top of the mind of people that are following this right now.
You've got the Department of Justice, Merrick Garland saying, I gave him unlimited uh authority, could have brought a case wherever he wanted to bring it.
It was up to him, I wasn't gonna veto it.
Then you've got the the whistleblower saying, Well, that's not true.
He told us, he being Weiss, that he didn't have the authority.
Then Weiss writes this letter, and the one thing that is in the letter that Jordan just read is that he could have he's saying he could have brought those cases in other jurisdictions.
Right.
Yep.
And and uh that may be true.
He he might couldn't have.
Uh we we don't know how the parsing of the words are.
What we do know is that two eyewitnesses to these conversations were told that he was turned down, something that, by the way, Weiss is not denying.
He's not denying that that happened.
He said that's the normal process.
Here's the big thing.
There was a statute of limitations that was allowed to expire.
That is not another fact that's no longer in dispute uh from the legal defense team or others.
Why would the statute of limited of limitations be allowed to expire if Weiss still had the power to bring the charges?
These are all questions that Congress are going to have to get multiple witnesses pinned down on, put people under oath or certainly under a transcribed interview where there's the penalty of lying to Congress, and try to get these facts.
I am told from senior Justice Department officials there is an extensive body of written documents, emails and other things that could illuminate what happened here.
Now, right now, U.S. Attorney's Office are saying, hey, it's still an ongoing probe.
I can't share anything.
Of course, that wasn't always the case in Russia collusion.
They had no problem sharing things in lifetime in the Russia collusion case, but I do believe there's going to be paper, contemporaneous paper, that will answer a lot of these questions.
Thus far, most of the people I talked to tell me that Gary Shapley's uh testimony matches what they knew as participants or observers of what was going on in the Weiss investigation.
Well, it's interesting, Jordan, because and and John knows us.
We we were involved, uh we ran the the defense of the president, President Trump on the Mueller probe.
We ran the you uh the impeachment attempt on Ukraine uh representing the pre former president.
So our distrust of these institutions is high.
But Merrick Gartland was it's so clear in his statement.
And then you got all these other witnesses, John's saying somebody's not telling the truth here.
Yeah, I mean, it's interesting to point out too, John pointed this out.
I do want to say it again to folks that in the letter that he references to Jim Jordan, that was an earlier letter from Jude, uh, he doesn't talk about that he could have gotten special counsel status.
Right.
Because uh supposedly he was denied that.
Yes.
He talks about special attorney status.
Yes.
In these uh if these U.S. attorneys wouldn't cooperate with him.
But of course, that that brings up by the time they made those decisions, was there a statute of limitations issue, anyways.
But he does not get into the special counsel issue.
Right.
He was denied it reportedly.
So that's another question we should say.
So John did you know if your sources indicated that in fact uh Weiss was denied special counsel stat and I'm no fan of special counselors, as you know, but was he denied that status?
Well my sources tell me is that they are certain that he that Weiss made the comment in the room.
They're not saying whether that request actually occurred, but they are saying that Weiss made that comment.
I'm not the only person to have that reporting.
Uh, I think the New York Times also said that it matched that reporting.
I want to point out a couple of important words in letters, because sometimes in a long letter, there's just a couple of phrases that are put there to uh signal where this might be going.
In his letter, uh David Weiss wrote that he was geographically limited on where he could file charges.
He doesn't say that.
Geographically limited.
That's consistent with what Gary Shapley said.
Go take a look at that sentence a very important sentence.
Here's the second thing.
When he came back with his second letter, he said he wanted to expand his story from where he was in the first.
I wish to expand on what what I meant.
He says as the U.S. attorney for district, my charging authority geographically limited to my home district.
If venue for a case lies elsewhere, common departmental practices to contact the U.S. Attorney's Office for the district in question and determine whether it wants to partner on the case.
If not, I may request special attorney status from the attorney general pursuant to 28 USC 15.
And then he doesn't say anything further.
Right?
Hey, you're reporting from your sources that he did request that special uh status and was denied it, or did he ever request it?
Uh my my I've not been able to get confirmation that David Weiss made that request to the Attorney General Merrick Garland.
As you know, Merrick Garland's a judge, he's very careful.
It would be very unusual for him to have turned down a special counsel request and then make the statement that he's made.
My sources do confirm that in a meeting, David Weiss made that comment that he had asked for it.
So all I can get pinned down is that he made the statement in this room with other people, but not whether the actual request was made.
There could be a lot of different reasons for that.
Uh, but I've had difficulty going from he said it in the room to it actually happened, meaning that he actually made the request to Merrick Garland.
That's the the challenge I've been having over the last few days.
I just simply can't get an answer to that.
And nailed down.
So what's interesting is for people to understand this.
So the way it works is this that a U.S. attorney for Delaware has authority in Delaware, but if he's going to bring in a uh a case, let's say in the central district of of California, he has to go to the U.S. attorney for the Central District of California and get consent.
Or he can get the special status, Jordan, that you were talking about when it's not clear as John's reporting, it's not clear where that goes.
But this idea that he had unfettered access and to do whatever he wants, that was totally bogus.
never had that authority.
So Merrick Hartley should have never said that.
I think what John's pointing out, we need to understand, is he never had the ability to just do what he wanted to do.
He had to keep asking people to go through the normal process.
And we know that process.
They acted like he didn't have to go through a normal process.
The way they said it is basically he's a carte blanche.
And we're hands off.
We're hands off.
We're not going to make any decisions on here.
He's saying they would have to make decisions.
So it is putting the attorney general's office in line for saying, no, no, if I if I had these issues, they had to make decisions on it.
I couldn't do it on my own.
It's going to be very interesting.
John, what do you think about the testimony of Weiss?
I mean, it's it's tricky because there's an ongoing investigation.
What's your sense of that happening on Capitol Hill?
My guess is that this won't happen until the time uh when the case is resolved, after which there's no real recourse or danger to Hunter Biden getting charged a second time or otherwise.
Uh but I don't think he'll be able to cooperate.
He's very clear in his letter.
He just simply can't talk now, and that all they can do is set a process together for the point when the case is closed, and he can talk to Congress.
He I'm pretty confident after the case is resolved, meaning Hunter Biden's plea is accepted and he's headed towards sentencing that there'll be some transmission of evidence because the Justice Department now has created a pattern of that uh with the Trump cases and other cases before it.
So it's there.
It really comes down to what happens in the July 26th hearing with Hunter Biden.
Will the judge accept the plea and and the charges?
That will be a big moment.
If it does, one could argue the case is closed, and then the process of discovery for Congress could be opened up.
So he does signal this.
I I want to go back to one letter, though I want to, because I do think it really goes to the uh question of Merrick Garland and the comments he made.
I just want to read the sentence one more time from David Weiss's letter.
My charging authority is geographically limited to my home district.
That's exactly what Gary Shapley said.
Weiss was telling the agents.
He himself acknowledges that this corroborates at least the part of Shapley's story.
Yeah.
Yeah, I think that no, I think that's right.
I mean, David Weiss has some explaining to do.
Yes, I'm not, and I'm not accusing David Weiss of anything.
It's it's a letter didn't answer the question.
He's a lawyer.
I think I think Eric Gartland has some explaining to do, honestly, because he acted like he acted like Merrick Gartland acted like David Weiss was Bob Mueller and could do whatever he wants.
Which the truth was Bob Mueller could never do whatever he wanted, because he didn't have the authority to he was not an independent counsel.
So I mean, some of this is you know, they talk at both sides of their mouth.
It's a very bureaucratic operation, the United States Department of Justice.
And Jordan and I know it because we litigated him for four years, pretty much full time.
I mean, that was it.
So all right, John, we appreciate it.
Thanks for the update.
Uh anything new on the Hunter Biden plea, or is that uh going to go pretty much as planned?
Yeah, I think it's not tracked for the end of this month, and uh I think it will resolve all issues.
I think what I'm hearing from both sides is that the plea deal will make clear.
Now it's unusual.
The plea deal has not yet been filed in court.
Usually when the criminal information is filed, you see a plea deal filed that day or very soon after.
So we haven't seen the language, but sources are telling me it will resolve all criminal questions to the present time.
Appreciate it.
Thanks, John.
Just the news, uh John Salman, good friend of ours, thrilled that he's on the broadcast.
Hey, folks, check us out.
ACLJ.org coming up, Senator Marsha Blackburn.
That's right.
Go to ACLJ.org to find out about the work of the American Center for Law and Justice.
Hey everybody, welcome back to the Sean Hannity Show.
Jay and Jordan Seculo in for Sean Hannity.
We just had on our friend John Solomon.
We've got a lot more ahead.
I want to talk about this thing, though, with the Department of Justice with Merritt Gartland, with uh Weiss, the uh U.S. attorney for Delaware that was investigating Hunter.
You know, there are two lawyers sitting on this radio set right now that know the Department of Justice well, and that's me and Jordan, because we spent four years litigating with them, representing a president that was President Trump.
And we know what goes on there.
And one thing Jordan said during our break here, and I think it's very important a piece.
You got to be scratching your head.
You're thinking who's telling the truth, who's not telling the truth.
You got you got the the whistleblower saying, Hey, the U.S. attorney came and he told us I'm limited in my jurisdiction.
I can't go anywhere.
I just, you know, I can only go where I'm authorized to go.
Then you've got, you know, others saying, oh no, he could have gone anywhere, it was turned down.
But Jordan, you said something that's very important.
They both could be right.
Yeah, but Bibber, other people are saying, well, he had the power to go everywhere.
They're assuming that he did want to go everywhere.
So he could have definitely told his staff, uh, if I go anywhere else, I've got to get approval from the U.S. attorney, and then if they turn me down, I got to go to the U the attorney general.
So basically tell him, so I don't have just carte blanche.
But if he never asked to go, both the whistleblowers correct, that he acknowledged that he didn't have the power, and David Weiss in his letter could be correct.
Now he might be hiding the ball a little bit because he never goes to the special counsel part.
He only talks about the special attorney uh status.
So there might be some issues there that we'd like to ask questions about.
But I do see how overall No, I got a hundred questions.
The whistleblower's not necessarily a liar.
David Weiss is not necessarily a liar at this point.
There's certainly questions to ask, but there is one way that they both could be telling the truth, which is he acknowledged the power he had, and the whistleblower repeated that to Congress.
Yeah, and that could be what it is here.
No, it's also isn't trying to exercise that power, so I mean that's exactly right.
And we like I said, we spend our time doing this at the American Center for Law and Justice at ACLJ.org.
And I encourage you to go to our website and check us out on all the social media apps as well as well, ACLJ.org.
And you can join the ACLJ.
You can help us continue to do these fights in federal court by joining the ACLJ.
And any amount you donate, tax deductible, and we're getting a matching gift at ACLJ.org.
So I encourage you to go there.
Senator Blackburn coming up.
▲
Export Selection