All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 6, 2023 - Sean Hannity Show
36:18
Jay Sekulow - September 5th, Hour 2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is an iHeart podcast.
You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
We got you.
I'm Carol Markowitz, and I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
We've been around the block in media, and we're doing things differently.
Normally is about real conversations.
Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
Join us every Tuesday and Thursday, normally, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Hour to Sean Hannity Show, toll-free.
It is 800-941, Sean, if you want to be a part of the program today.
So as we now head into, you know, post-Labor Day, year before presidential election, more and more people will begin to pay attention seriously to what's going on.
Now, we're all aware of the indictments of Donald Trump.
We're also aware of the polls that most Democrats, a majority of them, think that Joe Biden is too old, feeble, out of it to be president.
And I guess that the Democratic hit machine, the squad machine, doesn't have a lot of confidence in Joe because now there has been a real push to use the 14th Amendment of our Constitution as a means of disqualifying Donald Trump from being on the ballot in 2024.
So much for letting the people decide, right?
But anyway, this is supposedly, if you believe the mob, the media, it's supposedly gaining steam, yet it is dubious.
It is dangerous in terms of any real legal constitutional argument.
When I was away last Thursday, Jay and Jordan Seculo were filling in for me, and President Trump was a guest on the program, and he spoke about this.
And anyway, here's part of what he said.
He said the four indictments are Biden indictments.
He said Biden is coordinating the indictments.
Well, they're only coming after because, number one, I'm running, and number two, I'm leading by a lot, including Biden.
We just had a poll come out.
We're leading him by 10 points in one poll, which who wouldn't lead him?
I think a child would be leading him.
He's so bad.
He's the worst president we've ever had.
He's the most corrupt president.
And, you know, when you mention the four indictments, they're Biden indictments.
They're not indictments.
They're Biden indictments.
These are Biden indictments.
There's never been anything like it.
It's a third world banana republic.
That's what we've been reduced to between the open borders and the crooked elections.
So, you know, I always say to people, these aren't indictments.
These are Biden indictments.
They set it up.
And beyond that, you have the district attorney who's totally controlled in New York, who's totally controlled by the DOJ, which is the Biden's group.
And you have in Florida, you have a district attorney who is totally controlled again by Biden's group.
These are all Biden.
So it's like many indictments and, you know, the word at the Wharton School of Finance.
I never studied indictments, but I got a lot of them quickly.
But these are done by the political opponent.
These aren't legitimate indictments.
They also offer judgeships to lawyers representing clients.
Can you imagine that?
If you'll say something bad about Donald Trump, they offered a judgeship to a very respected lawyer, highly respected, and he was incensed when he heard it.
If his client would go and say negative things, anything negative about Donald Trump, how about that one?
And that's Jay Bratt that did that.
It's a disgrace what's going on.
Our country is going to hell.
We're like a failing nation.
We are truly a failing nation.
And we're going to get it straightened out, Jay.
That's why I do this.
All right, joining us now.
He was doing the interview with President Trump along with his son, Jordan.
He is the chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice.
Also, my own personal attorney, which I'm very proud to say, considering he's won a whopping like 22 Supreme Court cases or had a hand in at least that many.
Jay Seculo, welcome back to the program, sir.
Sean, thanks for having me.
You know, this whole idea of disqualifying Donald Trump from being on the ballots based on Article Amendment 14, the 14th Amendment, Section 3, which says no person, having been a senator, representative, or president, should be allowed to hold office if they've previously taken the oath, if it's been determined that they were involved in either an insurrection or rebellion against the United States.
That was aimed at the Confederates during the Civil War period.
So what you have here is this open-ended question of, well, if somebody's merely accused of this, which, by the way, legally he has not been yet.
I mean, stop right there because that's a very important distinction.
That is not what the D.C. case is about.
Everybody thought and assumed that that was going to be where the charges went, but they did not, did they?
They did not.
Now, there is a word out that it is possible that in the next two weeks, we could see a superseding indictment that does have that.
But as it stands right now, we do not.
And the idea that you could be disqualified prior to a final adjudication is outrageous.
It would, in fact, violate the Fifth Amendment's due process clause.
So the sense is that these lawyers that are coming up with this idea of presidential disqualification for Donald Trump based on insurrection or rebellion are way off base.
And I think legally they have no chance.
What about there was a theory put forward, obviously an NBC commentator, but putting all of that aside, that the Supreme Court would likely rule on this sooner rather than later.
Do you agree with that?
Because you have a number of states now investigating.
For example, the state of New Hampshire is asking their own state attorney general to weigh in on whether or not this is a possibility.
To initiate the action, some state agency or Secretary of State would have to remove him from the ballot, and then you would go in and challenge that, saying that that is not a proper adjudication.
Thus, the 14th Amendment, Section 3, is not implicated.
That's how it would be handled.
All right.
So to walk us through the process, assuming that these state's attorney generals or there's a move afoot in some states to make this happen, walk us through the court process.
How does that going to evolve?
Well, it would be the request would be made to be put on the ballot by the campaign, and the Secretary of State would say no, based on our determination under Article the 14th Amendment, Article Section 3, you are disqualified from running for president.
At which time, the Trump campaign would hire really good constitutional lawyers, which I'm sure would immediately go into federal court and saying there has not been either an adjudication, a charge, an allegation, certainly not an adjudication, and certainly not a final adjudication of culpability for insurrection or rebellion.
Thus, he must be admitted onto the ballot.
That's how it will play out.
Let's talk about, let's ask you, get your political analysis on this.
Why are they at this strategy knowing that they have four separate indictments?
They've got the New York Alvin Bragg case.
They got the D.C. case on January 6th.
They've got the Georgia case in Fulton County, Georgia, and then they got the case down in Florida, the document case.
And I don't know if it's possible or feasible to have four trials in a year and then more if you consider civil suits that the president is involved in.
I mean, is he going to spend an entire election year in a court?
How does one run for president under those circumstances?
I'm not convinced, and the evidence showed them that, that simply indicting Trump is affecting his ability to be the leader of the Republican Party and the leading candidate for president.
And nothing that they've been able to do legally so far, which includes four indictments and a civil suit, has been able to produce the fruit of what they want.
So they up it the next level with either trying to get a conviction prior to the election or trying this rather stretched Article 14th Amendment disqualification clause argument or Article 14th Amendment, Section 3.
And I just don't see it.
But we've got to be, as lawyers, very aggressive on this stuff in defending this because they could do this to Donald Trump.
They could do this to any presidential candidate.
You mentioned the possibility of superseding indictments, subsequent indictments.
That would be what happened down in Florida.
And I would assume that this could happen in Washington or happen in any one of these other places.
Now, first thing I would argue, Jay, is in terms of venue, you know, when 5 plus percent of the population of D.C. voted for Donald J. Trump, I don't particularly think the jury pool is fair to Donald Trump or any Republican or any conservative.
I'd argue with 12% of the vote going to Donald Trump in New York City, not exactly Republican-friendly territory either.
Fulton County, okay, a little bit higher, I believe, 24%.
Do you believe that the president can get fair trials in those jurisdictions?
No, I don't, but I also don't believe that that will be a successful basis for removal.
I agree with that too, nor do I think that any motion to change a venue would be do you think in federal court in Georgia, where then you not just have Fulton County, but you have Rome and all the northern counties.
And as you know, you lived there.
I lived there for a while.
You lived there for a while.
Those counties are conservative.
Well, I mean, that's the argument that Mark Meadows has been making that this should be a federal indictment because this was all during his charge and duties as the president's chief of staff.
And I don't know.
I think the arguments are strong from my perspective.
You're the constitutional attorney.
What do you think?
Well, it's not that it becomes a federal indictment.
It's still a state court indictment tried in a federal court.
I argued in Trump versus Van that the president in expanding his duties as president, and if he's brought in a state court proceeding, he can go to the federal courts.
And the Supreme Court in Trump versus Van, 9-0, ruled in our favor on that.
So the president, I just argued 24 months ago, will serve the president well in going to federal court.
Now, there's rich in both, by the way.
There's no panacea here.
There's no, I can argue stay in state, go to federal, but I understand why they want to go to federal court.
And I think that's where it's going to end up.
You see, this is not your first rodeo because we had the conviction, and it had to do with the same special counsel in this case appointed against Donald Trump by Merrick Garland.
But they got an 11-count conviction of former Governor McDonnell three years later, or about three years later, and you were involved in the appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
All of those guilty verdicts were vacated in large part because of your legal skills.
But more importantly, it just didn't meet the standard.
And to get a unanimous decision, I believe it was ADO because one justice either recused or wasn't there, but it was a unanimous verdict to vacate all of those convictions.
Now, here's the problem.
If Donald Trump were to face four trials in an election year and he's more likely to do better on appeal for reasons that I think you and I both agree on, that it's going to be a tough venue, New York City or D.C. or Fulton County, Georgia, then he could get a conviction.
He could get a trial with a conviction in an election year and could get it vacated the year after.
How does that impact the American people and their confidence in our system?
Well, it's very bad for the system, but I will tell you this.
You know, there's no final adjudication until the Supreme Court says there is.
So none of these cases are going to the Supreme Court by the time there's an election.
So it's not going to happen.
So they're going to try to rush some of these and early trials and some of these, but it's not going to happen.
You don't think the trials will happen?
Maybe to some of the defendants, but I don't think that's to Trump.
So in other words, you don't think any of these trials will take place in 2024.
And remember, the first attempt in the D.C. case, correct me if I'm wrong, I believe they wanted to start that trial on January 2nd.
That's butted up right against the Iowa caucus.
Then, of course, you had both Fulton County, Georgia, and now the new date in the D.C. case would be March 4th.
Well, the subsequent day, March 5th, happens to be one of the most important primary days for every candidate, and that would be Super Tuesday.
You know what you call this?
Election interference.
The guy won't be able to campaign for at least a month while he's prepping with his lawyers.
They should wait until after the election's over.
But there is a good argument that I think Trump makes, too.
It took two and a half years for them to bring these charges.
I would imagine that he needs ample time to prepare.
And doesn't a court have to look at the entire picture that this is not the only indictment that the presidential candidate of that presidential election year is facing when they put together a calendar?
Or is that not factored in at all?
They have no choice but to do that, Sean, in my view.
I see no way in the normal situation that these cases would go to trial before the election.
But this is not any case.
And these prosecutors and these judges want these cases to go.
So he's got a good legal team assembled now in Georgia.
He's got a good team assembled in New York.
And he's got a good team assembled in D.C.
So let's see how it plays out.
But the emotion practice is about to get very aggressive.
All right, quick break more with Jay Seculo on the other side.
Then your call's coming up, 800-941-Sean.
Our number, if you want to be a part of the program as we continue.
The left wants to silence Hannity.
Don't let it happen.
Make the commitment now.
Three hours every day at 3 p.m.
This is the Sean Hannity Show.
An important role as a parent is to ensure that your kids are as safe as possible when they are at school.
And as a parent, you must ask your child school safety director if they have a Knox entry access system that gets law enforcement into locked doors in case of an emergency.
Firefighters have trusted Knox products as their choice for access since 1975.
And now the Knox entry system for schools is providing law enforcement with the same resources.
You can learn more about Knox entry at schoolentry.com.
All right, Jay Seculo is with us.
This push now for the 14th Amendment.
Four huge, massive 91 charges, indictments from New York City to D.C. to Fulton County, Georgia, down to Florida.
That's not enough.
Now they want the 14th Amendment, yet there's been no conviction of the reason they want to disqualify Donald Trump from even being on the ballot.
Anyway, Jay Seculo, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, continues to weigh in on this.
Let me ask one final question, and that's about equal justice and equal application of our laws.
We know Hillary Clinton, top secret, classified information on servers.
We know 33,000 deleted emails.
Sounds awfully similar to the document case down in Mar-a-Lago where they had a raid.
Chappaqua was not raided.
Her office was not raided.
Then you got Joe Biden, four separate locations, top secret, classified information.
None of those locations were raided.
A special counsel has been appointed.
We haven't heard boo out of this guy the entire time while all these other indictments against Trump are going on.
What are people to conclude?
That there's a two-tier system of justice and the Department of Justice has been weaponized and it's run by an incompetent Attorney General who doesn't have the backbone to do what's right.
That's what.
What would Wright be?
Jay, we've got 18 cases against the Biden administration, many of which involve the Department of Justice.
And we're representing those whistleblowers now, too.
All right, Jay Secculo, Chief Counsel, American Center for Law and Justice.
What's your website, by the way?
ATLJ.org.
ATLJ.org.
Hey there.
I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
And I'm Carol Markowitz.
We've been in political media for a long time.
Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
That's why we started Normally, a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional sass.
You're our kind of people.
Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday.
On the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you listen.
Hey there, I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
And I'm Carol Markowitz.
We've been in political media for a long time.
Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
That's why we started Normally, a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional sass.
You're our kind of people.
Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday.
On the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you listen.
Hi, 25 to the top of the hour.
Toll-free.
Our numbers, 800-941-Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
So a couple of days off for Labor Day, and lo and behold, nothing has changed at our wide open borders.
The only thing that has changed is now all the sanctuary, city, and state champions want nothing to do with their sanctuary, city, or state status.
You know, a lot of, you know, it's amazing.
The New York Post had an article.
Now families are flocking to the border.
It's now an all-time high.
It's never been higher in the history of this country.
At the end of his third year as president, we probably will be near 8 million or over 8 million illegal immigrants that Joe Biden has aided and abetted and assisted in lawbreaking and not respecting our laws, our borders, our sovereignty into this country.
But if you listen to Corine Jean-Pierre, the president has done more to secure the border and to deal with the issue of immigration than anybody else ever in history, really.
Because now you've got all these blue states, all the sanctuary cities and states.
Yeah, they're pretty pissed off.
New York, Boston, Chicago, calling it a humanitarian crisis.
Business leaders, lawmakers at levels of government Democrats saying this has got to stop.
Well, how do we get here?
Because, well, They've been aiding and abetting in the law breaking as well.
You know, to listen to, you know, New York City Mayor Eric Adams or New York Governor Hochul publicly feuding this week, Adams demanding other parts of the state.
And by the way, D.C. says, well, just send them to Long Island.
Send them to upstate New York.
No, well, your $12 billion estimated cost disaster is on you.
New York City just wrote a check, $35 million for hotel rooms that they paid for illegal immigrants.
The city's Department of Homelessness, $26.4 million to the Volunteers of America to aid migrants, i.e.
illegal immigrants, in the Paul Hotel in Midtown.
Another $9.48 million to the Lutheran Social Services of Metropolitan New York, which has been hosting illegal immigrants at the Fairfield Inn in Long Island City, New York.
$5.2 billion racked up in New York City alone, just dealing with the cost and burden of illegal immigrants in New York.
Biden's White House, their answer, well, just ship them to Long Island now and ship them to upstate New York.
Oh, okay, there's an answer.
A Venezuelan national, by the way, that arrived in the sanctuary city of New York City, yeah, two months prior, has now been arrested six times for 14 different crimes, and nearly all of which are violent.
New York Post reporting, 29-year-old Danielle Hernandez-Martinez of Venezuela arrives in New York.
The very next day, he robs a Costco in Brooklyn, New York, then charged with petty larceny.
And because of bail reform, he was released from police custody.
He didn't have to pay a penny in bail.
Well, the following week, he robs a Dwayne Reed drugstore in Columbus Circle in New York, then sought to stab a security guard with a large knife while trying to shoplift at a different Dwayne Reed location.
He likes Dwayne Reed, apparently.
Then he attacks an independent journalist, 52-year-old guy who just wrapped up interviewing him for social media accounts.
Less than a month later, he's arrested for allegedly attacking a woman whom he did not know, grabbing her by the hair, dragging her across the ground, kicking her, smashing her cell phone.
He's charged with assault, criminal mischief, possession of a weapon, menacing.
Guess what?
Released from jail.
And 41 illegal immigrants arrested at a New York City migrant hotel in the last four months, all for crimes.
Well, does any of this surprise you?
Los Angeles, Texas, has sent their 10th bus to Los Angeles, and the city now is seeking legal action.
I thought this was a sanctuary state, and they were a sanctuary city.
Well, they should welcome them.
Let their taxpayers pay for it.
In the end, we're all going to pay for it.
It's unbelievable.
Let me play Eric Adams, the mayor of New York, blaming this on the GOP and the White House, not his invitation.
Listen: It is not about asylum seekers and migrants.
All of us came from somewhere to pursue the American dream.
It is the irresponsibility of the Republican Party in Washington for refusing to do real immigration reform.
And it's the irresponsibility of the White House for not addressing this problem.
Brownsville, Texas, El Paso, Denver, Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, we should not be burdened the weight of this problem.
Really?
Because why didn't you go down to the border when Governor Abbott invited you?
By the way, I want to remind you, then we'll get to your calls, 800-941-Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
All right, is it time for a new cell phone?
You know, you have to charge it every 10 seconds.
You get glass splinters because you have a crack screen.
Okay, now would be a perfect time.
You can upgrade to the new 5G Samsung Galaxy.
Our friends at Pure Talk will give it to you for free.
By the way, the Samsung 5G Galaxy has two-day battery life, edge-to-edge display, ultra-strong glass, and it's all free when you sign up for Pure Talks, unlimited talk and text and 15-gig data plan for just $35 a month with mobile hotspot, all the data you'd ever need, half the price of big carriers.
Matter of fact, Pure Talk uses the same 5G network and the same cell towers as AT ⁇ T, Verizon T-Mobile, and the average family saves close to $1,000 a month.
Now, making the switch is simple, fast, and easy.
And now you'll get a free, super durable 5G Samsung Galaxy when you make your Switch.
Just dial pound 250, say the keyword save now.
Pound 250, keyword save now from our friends at PureTalk.
All right, let's get to our busy phones.
Larry, Louisiana.
What's up, Larry?
How are you?
Glad you called, sir.
Greetings to you.
So I've just been pondering a thought.
So everything, for the most part, that President Trump has been charged with was the act was why he was sitting president.
Sitting presidents are supposed to have immunity from certain things.
Well, you can't charge a sitting president with a crime.
That you can't do.
And then there's a means of extricating yourself of that president, and that's a process, a constitutional process known as impeachment.
Correct.
But while you're sitting president and you do things, then if you want to come back and charge him with something, which they've opened Pandora's box and have let the cat out of the bag.
So what's going to prevent if this goes forward with these court cases and he gets convicted?
What's to keep somebody from saying, you know what?
My loved one was in the Army, and he lived in Little Rock, Arkansas, and he went over to Benghazi under Obama, and he got killed, and Hillary Clinton didn't do anything.
It was their negligence that got him killed.
So let's see, I'm the state prosecutor or Little Rock, Arkansas district attorney.
I'm going to charge them with negligent homicide, even though they were sitting president at the time.
Where does it stop?
Where does that line go?
Well, I mean, if you're asking whether we're crossing into banana or public territory, the answer is yes.
So I guess, you know, there's absolutely no limit to what analogy you can bring up regarding this.
So I hear what you're saying, but do I think any of that's going to happen?
No.
Look, all I really am looking for as it relates to the investigation into the Biden family syndicate or enterprise, if you like, the Fulton County version of a RICO statute or their definition of one, is I want the American public to have no ambiguity at all.
I want them to know every fact that we uncover as it relates to the Biden family about their bank accounts, their shell corporations, how many family members got paid, what countries they did business with, how much money did they do in business, and how much did they all profit, and what did Joe do to facilitate a lot of these deals that his zero experience son was putting together while he was an admitted addict at the time.
That's what I want the American people to fully understand.
What did he do to deserve money in China and Russia and Kazakhstan and Ukraine and Romania and Mexico?
Because once the American people hear that, you know, forget about a document issue that Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton had the same problem with.
Forget about January 6th, which has been litigated now to death.
Forget about all of these issues they're going after Trump on.
I think if the American people really believe strongly that the evidence is strong enough to suggest at the end of the day that he was involved in what is nothing short of an influence peddling potential bribery allegation and money laundering allegation, let me tell you, it's going to change the entire dynamic of the 2024 presidential race, in my view.
Do you agree or disagree?
I agree, and I would just like to finish up by saying that I don't think when a person does something while they're the sitting president, state and local courts should not have jurisdiction over it.
If anything, even though he's no longer president, the United States Supreme Court should be hearing these cases because he was the chief executive officer of the whole country.
And therefore, the United States Supreme Court, the other executive, the judicial branch of the government should be the one hearing these cases and not these local courts that have agendas.
They will only take it if they're forced to take it and they don't want to take it.
That is my guess.
And they're going to let the system play out.
One of the first questions, if you ever listen to arguments in a Supreme Court, why are you here?
Why are you in our jurisdiction?
How did you get here?
What are the issues?
What are the constitutional issues before us?
Those are the questions they're going to ask.
I think you're right, by the way, generally speaking, that these are issues that should be ultimately decided once and for all by the Supreme Court, but we'll see.
I'm not holding out a lot of hope for it.
All right, quick break right back to our phones.
Toll-free are number 800-941-Sean, if you want to be a part of the program as we continue.
The final hour of the Sean Hannity Show is up next.
Hang on for Sean's conservative solutions.
Now, let's get back to our busy phones.
Joe in South Carolina.
What's up, Joe?
How are you?
Glad you called, sir.
Hey, Sean, great talking to you from Bolly's Island, South Carolina.
I know the place well.
What's going on?
Oh, well, I wanted to weigh in on the firing of Victor Shogun and that video of Biden where he says, son of a bee, they fired him within six hours.
But in that video, Biden also says that they accused him.
They said, hey, you don't have that authority.
You're not the president.
And Biden says, go ask him.
So wait a minute.
Why haven't we subpoenaed Obama or James Comer or Jim Jordan, Centina Obama, to find out if he actually gave authority to Biden to withhold a billion dollars?
If he didn't give that authority, then Biden lied about that.
If he did give this authority, then we need some answers as to whether or not Obama is a co-conspirator.
So I really need to address this because you and many other people have brought this point up.
It is the only moment example implication of Obama.
And I'm being fair here.
I'm just based on what I know.
And as you know, we're pretty deep in the weeds of all of this.
Remember, in October of that year, 2015, interagency conclusion was that there had been enough progress on the issue of corruption regarding Ukraine that it was Obama administration policy to give them the billion dollars.
That was not Joe's decision.
That had been made before he went there, five days after he spoke to Burisma executives and his son when they were in desperate need of D.C. help because of Victor Shokin, the prosecutor that he did get fired and leveraged.
Now, do I think it's a legitimate, fair question to ask Obama?
Absolutely, I do.
Did you give him the authority to go against what your own stated policy is?
Yeah, I would like, I think that that's worthy of an answer, but I have yet to find any other implication or evidence of any kind that Obama knew.
But I think that you're asking a legitimate, fair, justifiable question.
Yeah, and that's right.
But the real reason of asking the question is because we pretty much know the answer.
Obama didn't know anything about this.
This was Biden, the Biden crime family, using a billion dollars to get the prosecutor fired for the benefit of Hunter Biden and Burisma.
So the fact that you have that supported by Obama saying, no, I had nothing to do with it, then it raises the question, okay, what was the motive of Biden to lie about it?
To say, ask him.
I'm holding this money.
Ask him.
He said I have the authority.
He might have been calling their bluff.
I don't know, but they had six hours and they needed that billion in loan guarantees.
But it's definitely worthy.
You and others, many people have brought that up.
My main focus is that he did it, bragged about it, and that his son, because of that action, as the 1023 form, you know, detailed, that the Biden family benefited financially.
They enriched themselves financially.
Anyway, good point.
Joe, South Carolina.
We appreciate it.
Let us say hi to Tom in Pennsylvania.
What's up, Tom?
How are you?
Glad you called.
Hey, Sean, I just, thanks for taking a call.
I just have a question that's been bothering me.
Why do we never see Joe Biden in the Oval Office?
Well, he's not there a lot.
I mean, I'm not, you know, I went over this earlier in the program today, but I think the numbers are pretty clear and they speak for themselves.
And that is, you know, he's been out of the, he's been on vacation 384 days.
You know, he makes this lame, pathetic excuse about why he hasn't been to East Palestine, you know, just saying, I haven't had the occasion to go there seven months later, really?
And meanwhile, since that date, 215 days he's been on vacation, well, that town is still suffering dramatically.
I had JD Vance on last week talking about it.
Well, yeah, because my question is, every other president I've ever seen, he signs whatever in the Oval Office.
He addresses the American from the Oval Office.
This guy, I see him in a hallway or at a podium.
I'm just wondering, is somebody else using the office?
I mean, is Hunter maybe selling his artwork out of the office now?
Is that why Joe's not there?
They keep Joe as far away from cameras and microphones as humanly possible.
And by the way, it's even going to get more strict once 2024 gets here.
Mark my words.
Anyway, good point.
800-941 Sean, if you want to be a part of the program, Dr. Fauci on his flip-flopping mask positions.
It even got more flippy and floppy over the weekend.
I'm sure driving Linda up a wall.
But we'll get to that in the next hour.
Listen, I want to remind you about home title theft.
All right, do you open junk mail?
Linda, you don't open junk mail.
Nobody opens junk mail.
Anyway, there's a story, if you can Google it, of a mom that was receiving all this junk mail about mortgages and like most of us, just threw it straight in the trash.
One day she just opened it.
And it's kind of lucky she did because a total stranger she discovered was now the legal owner of her family home.
And our friends at home titlelock.com, they've already shown us here on the Hannity show how quickly these thieves can steal your property, your number one investment, and transfer your home title into their name.
They can do it in five to six minutes.
It just takes minutes to steal.
It can take months, even years, you know, to get this undone if you're even capable of doing it.
Anyway, that's what HomeTitleLock.com is all about.
They monitor the largest database of property records in the U.S. 24-7.
And if you're protected by them, they will alert you the second anyone tries to mess with your home title.
And Home Title Lock's team of restoration specialists, by the way, they will act fast if somebody is trying to steal your home.
And right now, our friends at home titlelock.com, they'll give you 30 days of protection free.
They'll start you with a free title scan, verify that your home is still in your name and you're not already a victim.
Just go to hometitalock.com, promo code Sean, that's S-E-A-N.
HomeTitleLock.com, promo code Sean S-E-A-N.
You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
We got you.
I'm Carol Markowitz.
And I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
We've been around the block in media and we're doing things differently.
Normally is about real conversations.
Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
▲
Export Selection