All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 21, 2023 - Sean Hannity Show
39:17
Liberal Tantrum - December 20th, Hour 1

Joe Pags fills in for the vacationing Sean and tackles the various liberal left tantrums that have become a historical trend.  People are still complaining about "the illegitimate presidency of President Trump."  Can't make this up!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

| 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.
I'm Ben Ferguson.
And I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So down a verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
What I told people, I was making a podcast about Benghazi.
Nine times out of ten, they called me a masochist, rolled their eyes, or just asked, why?
Benghazi, the truth became a web of lies.
From Prologue Projects and Pushkin Industries, this is Fiasco, Benghazi.
What difference at this point does it make?
Listen to Fiasco, Benghazi, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Glad to be in for Sean.
It is your boy, Joe Paggs.
It's an absolute honor, as always, along with Linda McLaughlin.
Linda, how are you?
Good to see you.
I am great.
Thanks for being here, Joe, and filling in for Sean.
We greatly appreciate it.
It is amazing to do it every time, and you are great.
I agree with you.
Ethan, along for the ride as well.
We've got a lot to get to today.
We've got this 14th Amendment deal out of Colorado.
And I just, late report was, Linda, I don't know if you saw this.
This just broke.
It turns out they might be indulging in Colorado's very lenient marijuana laws on the court there.
Not sure, but I think that might be what happened yesterday.
We're going to break down the 14th Amendment, how stupid this ruling is, how Trump is actually still on the ballot.
Everybody's reporting that he's off the ballot.
He's not because they stayed their own ruling.
We've got to get into that.
I've got a Paggs parody called We're Ending All Your White Privilege.
It's a Christmas song, Linda.
It sounds very holiday-friendly for sure.
You know, when I think about Christmas and holidays and seeing the true color of one's heart, I think of white privilege for sure.
Absolutely.
Exactly right.
So we're going to have that for you coming up next hour.
We've got a bunch of great interviews for you.
Dr. Carol Swain is on.
She is the one who was allegedly plagiarized by this Claudine Gay from Harvard, and she's not very happy about it.
And she's just letting it all, she lets it go.
She doesn't hold back on Claudine Gay and what she thinks is really going on.
We've also got Senator Ron Johnson on the program.
Mike Davis will join us from the Article 3 project this hour to break down this dumb ruling out of Colorado.
We've got to break down exactly what it is that happened yesterday because it's being falsely reported by a lot of people that former President Donald Trump is not on the ballot anymore.
He was taken off the ballot.
Well, that will be the end result if in fact the Supreme Court doesn't disagree with what the Colorado Supreme Court did yesterday.
The long and short of it is this.
The Colorado Supreme Court got the case after lower courts said you can't take him off the ballot.
And four to three, they've got a seven judge panel in Colorado.
They decided that in fact, because of the insurrection clause in the 14th Amendment, Donald Trump can be removed from the ballot in Colorado.
Then people say, well, just write his name in.
Well, if this ruling stands, you can't even write his name in.
It won't be counted.
So is he still on the ballot?
The answer is yes.
The court itself stayed its own ruling until January 4th.
January 5th is the deadline for the final names to be on the ballot in Colorado.
One would have to assume that the United States Supreme Court is going to get this case and they'll decide it way before January 4th.
But Linda, here's my question.
And I wonder what you think about this.
It should be 9-0.
That should be easy.
If you were somebody who's in the predicting game, and maybe you're not, but if you'd like to make a prediction, what do you think the Supreme Court is going to do?
The United States Supreme Court, I think it's going to, it should be 9-0 in my opinion.
I would agree with you.
I mean, I think if they're true constitutionalists and they're following the letter of the law, there's absolutely no way that they can side with these four CBD gummy guys.
I mean, it's just not a thing.
Let me throw this out at you, though.
Katanji Brown Jackson can't define woman.
So it might be eight to one.
I mean, it could be, I think, eight to one.
I don't know.
Yeah, I mean, we got a wild card in there for sure.
A couple jokers.
You know, I mean, unfortunately, I was just talking about this earlier with Anthony.
You know, there's been such hope, you know, because we had Kavanaugh, you know, we had Amy Coney Barrett, you know, and I just think, you know, I've kind of given up on Roberts.
But it just, you know, we have Clarence Thomas, we have people in there that truly understand the letter of the law.
But I don't know what's happening behind closed doors, you know, when they're writing their papers and kind of going through the process.
Like, you know, there just is and there isn't.
And it just seems like so much of what isn't becomes what they want it to be as opposed to what it just is.
And the bottom line is the 14th Amendment is what it is.
You can't change it.
It's our Constitution.
And these folks in Colorado, you know, Newt Gingrich had a tweet out today and he said, so basically four folks in the Supreme Court of the Colorado State Court basically overruled over 1 million people who voted for President Trump.
That's what happened today.
Yes, in one fell swoop.
And very wisely said, the court should be, I mean, and again, we can't make assumptions.
It should be six to three conservative to liberal at this point.
Because of John Roberts, it's been six to four a few times, or five to four, I should say, a few times.
And it shouldn't be.
But John Roberts is really, really weak backboned.
He has very little spine, the guy.
But without a doubt, I think Ruth Bader Ginsburg, if she were alive, would have voted because this is strictly on the Constitution.
So for those who don't know, the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendment were all added after the Civil War.
They basically were put in place to make sure you couldn't do this again, the Civil War, the splitting of the states, and to make sure that former slaves got the freedoms and liberties that they deserved and were afforded by the original founding.
The idea that the 14th Amendment can be used for, A, anchor babies at the border, which is what they're using every day, and to also disqualify a guy you don't like who's running for president, doesn't make any sense.
The actual insurrection clause, I think it's the third clause in the 14th Amendment.
I'm going to actually, I'm going to read it to you because it's very, very simple.
No person shall be a senator or representative in Congress or elector of president and vice president or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States or under any state who having previously taken an oath as a member of Congress or as an officer of the United States or as a member of any state legislature or as an executive or judicial officer in any state to support the Constitution of the United States shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Now, what does this mean?
It's actually pretty simple.
If you were part of the wannabe revolution that separated the states, leading to the war between the states, Linda, I live in Texas.
They call it the war of northern aggression here.
It's the war of northern aggression, the Civil War.
If you were part of that Confederacy on some sort of leadership level and you led the rebellion or the insurrection against the United States of America, you couldn't run and hold high office in the reunited United States of America.
This had specifically been written to make sure that those who led the separation of this country that led to 600,000 people dying in the Civil War could not hold office now in the United States.
It has nothing to do with 21st century America.
It has nothing to do with Donald Trump.
It has nothing to do with Joe Biden.
And by the way, even if we just read it by the letter of the law, let's say it does apply to everybody for perpetuity.
There was no insurrection.
Nobody who was at the Capitol on January 6th has been charged with insurrection.
Not one person, not the most violent rioter who was vandalizing and breaking things has been charged with a specific charge of insurrection.
Donald Trump gave a speech that day.
He said, I know you're going to go, you're going to march down to the Capitol, peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.
He did not incite a so-called insurrection.
Nobody's been charged with it.
He hasn't been charged with it.
Nobody's been convicted of it because they haven't been charged of it.
So how exactly is it that four doofuses, and I say that lovingly, in Colorado can make a decision that this guy somehow is guilty of insurrection?
And also, I don't know if you listen, but at the end of it, Congress literally can say, yeah, this insurrection clause can be thrown out by us.
We can, by two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate, can say there is no insurrection clause.
So the idea that you can, 150 years after the Civil War, decide to keep a guy off the ballot by alleging and asserting that he ran some insurrection on the country is laughable.
By the way, in insurrection, you'd have a bunch of guns and stuff.
You have any guns?
You have any firearms were found on people who went to the Capitol on January 6th?
Zero.
Not one.
So Linda, it begs the question, are they just this scared of the guy?
Because if you can't stand Donald Trump and you want to beat him in the election, just beat him in the election.
Why do you have to go through all this crap to try to stop him from being even being eligible?
Yeah, I mean, you know, I think there's a few problems.
The first is, and I've said this a million times, both about the Russia collusion hoax and all of the investigative efforts that, you know, Mueller put forth and the, you know, the millions of taxpayer dollars we wasted on it from Horowitz to Mueller and, you know, Ray's involvement there and, you know, all that money and they didn't find a single tie.
Nothing.
And what I always say to Democrats, you know, or people who hate Trump, it's really just not like a Democrat problem.
It's, you know, it's like a psychosis of these like, you know, I hate Trump people.
But I always ask them the same thing.
I say, you know, where's the proof?
Because I'm just telling you right now, if these people that hate Trump with all of their heart and soul, I mean, he lives rent-free in their minds all day long.
And there is no doubt about that.
You think for one second, if they found something, this guy wouldn't be right now sitting in a jail cell?
Of course he would.
Of course he would.
And where is he?
He's playing golf.
That's what he's doing.
Okay.
He's out playing golf right now.
He's perfecting his swing.
He's getting more Americans to love him.
So guess what?
Epic fail, total waste of taxpayer dollars.
And now you got these four.
And these four individuals are all Democrat appointed.
Three of them went to Ivy League school.
So you know they got brainwashed there.
You know, and they are saying their cause, their reason for this is because he did engage.
He engaged in the alleged rebellion.
So there's no actual confirmation of insurrection.
They just had new things that came out last week about J-Six.
And now we don't have any of the tapes.
We don't have any of the testimonies.
We don't have any of the depositions.
Everything has suddenly disappeared.
I mean, at some point, folks, you got to use your common sense and ask, putting everything else aside, is there a reason why elected officials are unable to keep depositions in a protected skiff, at least?
I mean, if you're that afraid of losing it, it's a whole thing.
It's just a bunch of crap.
And now you got to love that Adam Schiff is still, you brought up Russia collusion.
He's still to this day pushing the idea that Russia interfered in the election.
Kamala Harris a week and a half ago was on camera at some speech, literally saying Russia interfered in the 2016 election.
Is she doing an insurrection, do you think, by saying that?
Well, I think that, you know, Ethan and I talk about this a lot too.
Ethan and I have this montage that we've gone over and we've added to it over the years.
And it's basically all of these Democrats talking about various elections and how not my president.
I mean, we had millions of people marching, not my president, in their hats during the women's march and all this other baloney, right?
And it's like, are all those people insurrectionists?
What about the Antifa people that sat inside the Capitol Hall and the Rotunda two weeks ago?
Are all those people insurrectionists?
You know, it's such a, it's, it's so beyond the pale at this point.
And I think the thing that aggravates both me, both you, and all of the listeners on both your show and Sean's show is, okay, so we know what the problems are.
Now what?
So what can we do?
What do we do?
Because the, you know, as far as I'm concerned, I don't see one Republican aside from a handful of them, and I do mean one handful, doing anything.
Not a dang thing.
I agree.
Maybe, yeah, maybe we'll do that on the other side.
Ethan actually has the montage.
So maybe we'll hit that.
Yeah, let's do that when we come back from break.
Without a doubt.
Yeah.
The numbers, as usual, 800-941-7326-800-941.
Sean, you can go and find me at joepags.com, J-O-E-P-A-G-S dot C-O-M.
I'm pushing toward 200,000 on the X or Twitter, whatever we're calling it now.
So stop by their Joe Talk Show there.
Joe Talk Show on Instagram will be 300,000 there soon.
If you like these videos that I do, then I yell come on at the end.
Come on.
I yell at at the end of the videos for some reason.
We come back, that montage.
More in the 14th Amendment.
Mike Davis at the bottom of the hour on the Sean Hannity show.
Stay here.
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.
I'm Ben Ferguson.
And I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So down at Verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
What I told people I was making a podcast about Benghazi, nine times out of ten, they called me a masochist, rolled their eyes, or just asked, why?
Benghazi, the truth became a web of lies.
It's almost a dirty word, one that connotes conspiracy theory.
Will we ever get the truth about the Benghazi massacre?
Bad faith political warfare.
And frankly, bullshit.
We kill the ambassador just to cover something up.
You put two and two together.
Was it an overblown distraction or a sinister conspiracy?
Benghazi is a Rosetta Stone for everything that's been going on for the last 20 years.
I'm Leon Napok from Prologue Projects and Pushkin Industries.
This is Fiasco Benghazi.
What difference at this point does it make?
Yes, that's right.
Lock her up.
Listen to Fiasco, Benghazi, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Hey there, I'm Mary Catherine Ham.
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 Podcasts, or wherever you listen.
I'm Ben Ferguson.
And I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So download Verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
What I told people, I was making a podcast about Benghazi.
Nine times out of ten, they called me a masochist, rolled their eyes, or just asked, why?
Benghazi, the truth became a web of lies.
It's almost a dirty word, one that connotes conspiracy theory.
Will we ever get the truth about the Benghazi massacre?
Bad faith political warfare, and frankly, bullshit.
We kill the ambassador just to cover something up.
You put two and two together.
Was it an overblown distraction or a sinister conspiracy?
Benghazi is a Rosetta Stone for everything that's been going on for the last 20 years.
I'm Leon Napok from Prologue Projects and Pushkin Industries.
This is Fiasco, Benghazi.
What difference at this point does it make?
Yes, that's right.
Lock her up.
Listen to Fiasco, Benghazi, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Light to have you, the Sean Hannity Show.
Your boy Joe Pagg's in for Sean.
Linda's alongside as well.
Ethan's here too.
We were talking about this montage before we hit the break.
Linda, do you need to set it up or is it self-explanatory?
I mean, it's just basically Dem saying that, you know, not my president and that it's okay to contradict what the election results are and just, you know, total hypocrisy on the left.
Ethan, give it to us.
We actually won the last presidential election, folks.
They stole the last presidential election.
And Al Gore won that election.
I think he won it anyway.
Actually, I think I carried Florida.
A court took away a presidency.
You and others participated in what I call the United States coup d'état.
There's no doubt in my mind that Al Gore was elected president.
The Supreme Court elected in 2004.
Al Gore won the state of Florida in 2000, although not the presidency.
Not every vote was being counted.
Our candidate had won the popular vote, and the only way they could win the election was to stop the voting in Florida.
Trump didn't actually win the election in 2016.
He lost the election, and he was put into office because the Russians in affairs.
Because I think you're the legitimate president that didn't really win.
So how do you, you know, fight against that in 2020?
You are absolutely right.
So that was a very tainted election.
And in that sense, it's illegitimate.
He's an illegitimate president, in my mind.
Would you be my vice president of Sir Henry?
Folks, look, I absolutely agree.
He knows he's an illegitimate president.
We have a president who, if in fact, it is proven, has been assisted by the Russians and may, in fact, not be a legitimate president.
You said you believe that Russia's interference altered the outcome of the election.
I do.
I know it is.
President-elect as a legitimate president.
Stolen emails.
Stolen drone.
Stolen drone.
Stolen election.
Welcome to the world of unprecedented Trump.
You can run the best campaign.
You can even become the nominee.
And you can have the election stolen from you.
Constantly shifting vote tallies in Ohio and malfunctioning electronic machines, which may not have paper receipts, have led to additional loss of confidence.
I arranged to meet Senator Kerry at a fundraiser to give him a copy of my book.
He told me he now thinks the election was stolen.
I'm not confident that the election in Ohio was fairly decided.
We know that there was substantial voter suppression and the machines were not reliable.
We cannot declare that the election of November 2nd, 2004, was free and clear and transparent.
The right to vote has been stolen from qualified voters.
Some machines malfunctioned, causing votes to be counted more than 10 years ago.
Let's back out of this before we hit the break.
Ethan, amazing.
Linda, amazing.
I mean, you could probably play something like that for like an hour and a half.
And I'm guessing that everybody in that audio and video we just saw and heard is not sitting in jail and doesn't face insurrection charges and can be on any ballot they want, right?
Yeah, that was them using their First Amendment rights.
They still exist on the left.
Trump doesn't have First Amendment rights.
You and I don't really have them either.
It's amazing to me that that's what they do.
When we come back, it'll be Mike Davis from the Article 3 Project.
He's an expert on the law, and he's going to fill us in on how wrong this ruling is in Colorado and much more.
It's Joe Paggs in for Sean Hannity.
The new Sean Hannity Show, talking about what's right for America, with a renewed commitment to keep you up to date on the breaking news stories.
And for Sean today, it's Joe Paglerillo.
Joe Paggs.
Go to joepags.com, check out what we do there.
Follow us on all the social media as well.
I'm really glad to have this guy back.
He's a friend of mine on my show all the time, on Sean's show all the time.
It's Mike Davis from the Article 3 Project.
Mike, how are you?
I'm doing well, and thank you for having me back on.
I appreciate having you on.
I just read the part of the 14th Amendment that allegedly applies to what Colorado did yesterday with Trump.
And obviously, it's about the Civil War.
Obviously, it's about people who were in high positions in the Confederacy and ran what they wanted to be a revolution.
It had nothing to do with 2021 or 2023 or 21st century politics.
It has nothing to do with Donald Trump and whether you like his hair or his tweets.
Mike, this is a stretch worse than even like Adam Schiff claiming there was Russia collusion.
Tell me what you thought when you saw this ruling come down.
Well, it didn't surprise me because I live in Colorado and I know how the Colorado judiciary has been transformed to left-wing radicals with these Democrats who have won elections out here since Colorado went to all-male ballots and legalized weed and all the dirt balls from California and New York moved to Colorado-like cultural COVID and ruined the state.
And so it didn't surprise me with these seven Democrat-appointed justices on the Colorado Supreme Court, that the four most radical would go along with this abomination of a legal theory that Trump is somehow disqualified under a post-Civil War constitutional provision, and that's it, to chase Confederates out of office so they didn't undermine the post-Civil War Reconstruction effort in the Union.
But the Democrats dusted off this 155-year-old constitutional provision.
They had several courts reject their bogus legal theory, but these four partisan hacks on the Colorado Supreme Court went along with it.
It's Mike Davis Article 3 project.
Go and follow him, article3project.org.
Mike, what blew my mind about this was that, as you said, the lower courts all said, yeah, you can't do this.
This doesn't make any sense.
But we also know there wasn't an insurrection.
Nobody even had a firearm at the Capitol that day.
You had some people who vandalized, some people that rioted, mostly the people that were there were taking selfies and doing nothing else.
But not one of them, none of these J6 defendants has been charged with insurrection.
Jack Smith isn't even charging Trump with insurrection.
What are these goofballs on the Colorado Supreme Court?
What are they legally leaning on?
I mean, they have to legally make their case.
What do they say they know?
So they think that they can just interpret what the insurrection provision of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment means, and they can apply that in their state.
But that is not at all what the controlling legal precedence says.
There is a case from 150-plus years ago from then-Chie Justice Samuel Chase, and it's very clear that if you want to disqualify someone from holding office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment for engaging in insurrection or rebellion, Congress has to pass a federal criminal statute, which Congress did in 1869.
It's still on the books.
You have to bring federal charges through a federal grand jury against that defendant.
The jury has to find that defendant guilty unanimously with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
The federal trial court judge has to convict, and that conviction must be upheld on appeal.
That is the only way you can disqualify under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
And then you have these radical left-wing judges who think they can substitute that, and you can just have an election challenge, which is not even a real trial.
And you can determine in that election challenge that somehow an insurrection occurred, even though, as you said, they went in unarmed, followed police direction, walked through velvet ropes, took selfies, and didn't burn down the damn place.
And then you can have them determine for the first time in American history that a presidential candidate who happens to be the leading presidential candidate can be disqualified on a state ballot based upon what some goofball state judge or some radical goofballs on a state Supreme Court think.
That's not how our Constitution works.
This is the most anti-democratic decision imaginable.
It's Mike Davis Article 3 Project.
Mike, give me, is it M-R-D-D-M-I-th?
That's what it is, right over on Twitter?
You got it.
My initials in Des Moines, Iowa.
M-R-D-D-M-I-G go follow him over there.
He's a great follow.
He writes these threads about the legality of what's going on in this country, the law fair that's being run against conservatives in this country.
And bar none, he's the guy I go to every single time I've got a question about the Constitution.
I read a bit of the decision, Mike, and correct me if I get this wrong, but it appears as though the four justices or judges on that court said they didn't have to define what an insurrection was to make the decision.
Is that true?
They did.
Now, remember how this court is set up.
It's seven Democrat-appointed justices on this Colorado Supreme Court.
The court has just completely lost.
Four of them went to these fancy schools, Harvard, Penn, Virginia, Yale.
Three of them, the three with common sense, the three and the four to three decision are the three University of Denver law grads who have common sense and understand that you don't have to be an elite egghead to understand that this is an abomination what these Democrat judges are doing,
that they think these four Democrat judges think they can disenfranchise more than a million Trump voters in the state of Colorado based upon a bogus reading of the Constitution, a bogus interpretation of what an insurrection means.
January 6th was a lawful protest permitted by the National Park Service that got out of control and turned into a right.
It was not an insurrection.
And it is laughable to say it is.
If it were an insurrection, why didn't Bulldog Democrat Jack Smith charge insurrection if there were an insurrection on January 6th?
And he's known to be wrong a lot.
So he would have had no problem being wrong, but even he knew that this was way too far a reach.
It's MikeDavis, article3project.org.
Go there.
Mike, so what happens next?
Everybody misreported this yesterday and said that he's off the ballot.
He's not.
They stayed their own ruling until the Supreme Court takes it up or until January 4th.
So what is the next step?
Is the Supreme Court compelled that they have to take this up now?
No, the Supreme Court has discretionary review, meaning they don't have to take cases, but I don't see how they can avoid this case because it has such national importance.
But remember how these four weasels on the Colorado Supreme Court wrote this thing.
They did this big splashy opinion and got the headlines that they wanted and set the precedent they wanted, but they stayed their disqualification decision, meaning they stopped it.
If Trump files a petition to the Supreme Court, the Colorado Supreme Court stays its decision until the U.S. Supreme Court decides whether to take the case or not take the case.
And then if they take the case, it stayed through the penancy of the case.
And so this just shows that these four Democrats on the Colorado Supreme Court were playing political games with their ruling.
So in other words, I mean, I'm hearing you right, I think.
They stayed their own order until such a time as Trump petitions, and then we're going to wait to see what the Supreme Court does in the United States.
We're probably going to go past January 5th.
So this ruling is just something that makes Democrats feel good.
It's not going to keep them off the ballot, is it?
Yeah, it's cathartic for Democrats.
It's good for these partisans on the Colorado Supreme Court who have to run for retention.
Wow.
And then they set a precedent for other states to use because, again, Trump's not going to win Colorado.
It's lost.
It's a deep blue state.
But they could use this precedent and swing states and try to, they know they can't beat Biden on November 5th, 2024.
So the way they want to beat him is to disqualify him after they impeached him twice and indicted him four times and illegally gagged him twice and tried to bankrupt his business.
Now their legal hail marries.
We're just going to take them off the ballot.
Crazy.
It is MikeDavisArticle3Project.org.
Mike, I think like you do, that the Supreme Court won't ignore this.
They'll do something about it.
If it does come down to a decision, it's got to be 9-0.
Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg should, were she still alive, would have sided with the Constitution on this.
Do you even see it going 8-1?
It's got to be 9-0.
No?
It should be 9-0, but that presumes you're dealing with good faith actors on all sides.
And the three Democrat-appointed justices on the Supreme Court have gotten very partisan in recent years, especially with the arrival of Justice Detanji Brown Jackson.
And so it should be 9-0.
This is such a clear-cut, easy case, and it would be a good way for the Supreme Court to salvage legitimacy, but it could be 6-3.
Who knows?
You could have some of these weaker Republican appointees who don't get outside of Washington, D.C. much, who actually believe this nonsense.
But I imagine, I predict Trump will prevail in the Supreme Court.
It will probably be six to three.
Mike, my eight-year-old daughter came up and said, dad, it's going to be nine, nothing, right?
Six to three would be nuts to me.
It's Mike Davis, article3project.org.
While I have you, I've got to ask you about Hunter Biden showing up, getting out of the out of the SUV, doing his little announcement where he, by the way, he added the word financially in front of his dad having anything to do with his business.
My dad had nothing financially to do with my businesses.
So that story's changed four or five times.
But by procedure, what will Congress do now?
I think the House should have already held him in contempt.
I mean, it was easy to get Bannon and Navarro.
Why wouldn't you get Hunter Biden?
What's going to happen with that?
I mean, that's obvious contempt of Congress, and they should move forward immediately with contempt.
He was obviously able to testify.
He actually showed up and put on a charade.
And frankly, when Trump is back in office, the Trump 47 Justice Department not only should look at prosecuting Hunter Biden for contempt, the Trump Justice Department should look at indicting Abby Lowell, his attorney, for conspiring to obstruct this congressional investigation.
Mike, is there a legal problem?
Because Karine Jean-Pierre that day was asked about it, and she said, well, obviously the president knew what his son was going to say.
I mean, I think that she just threw Joe Biden under the bus.
If the president knew, then that would be him somehow aiding and abetting somebody who knew, who he knew was going to be in contempt of a subpoena.
Is there anything there?
Well, it's not, yeah, it sounds like that.
It sounds like Joe Biden's part of this conspiracy to obstruct a congressional investigation.
And so, you know, and look at the Biden Justice Department going after Trump and Trump's top aides and Trump supporters on January 6th and parents and Christians.
And so they've set the precedent.
It sounds like the sounds like President Biden has set himself up for prosecution by the Trump 47 Justice Department.
I want to finish back on this ruling out of Colorado.
It's Mike Davis.
So Mike, I want to play a piece of audio.
I think you can hear this.
This is President Biden.
There's a lot of plane noise in the background, but some idiot reporter yells, is Trump an insurrectionist?
Listen.
Trump an insurrectionist, sir?
Well, I think so.
You saw it all.
I know whether the 14th Amount of the Five or let the court make that decision.
But he certainly supported an insurrection.
No question about it.
None.
Zero.
Mike, did you hear that?
Mike, did you hear that?
That didn't come up on my side, but I've heard this before.
Well, he walks up and he walks up and he says it's self-evident.
Of course, he took part in an insurrection.
He goes on or not.
Of course it is.
I mean, come on.
He's an insurrectionist.
I mean, should the president, the sitting president of the United States is now getting involved in a case out of Colorado where KJP every day tells us we're not going to comment on ongoing cases.
What did you think when you saw that?
Well, I would say a couple of things.
I would say, number one, this is putting undue pressure on his Justice Department to bring insurrection charges, even though the evidence does not exist.
And I would say this, if we're getting rid of immunity for what the president does in office like they're doing for Trump, whether it's civil immunity or criminal immunity, it sounds like President Trump should file a lawsuit against President Biden for civil defamation for saying he's an insurrectionist.
Being an insurrectionist has a very distinct legal meaning, and there's zero evidence that Trump engaged in insurrection.
And if you're saying Trump is an insurrectionist, you have to faint him.
Amazing.
Mike, it's great that you jumped on today.
Thank you so much for taking the time.
Mike Davis, article3project.org.
Make sure you go and follow him over on Twitter and other places, M-R-D-D-M-I-A.
He writes these incredible threads that are to the note, to the T.
They are legal and they will tell you exactly what the left is trying to do with their law fare against everybody on the right.
Mike, thanks a million.
Thank you, Joe.
I appreciate you.
We're back after this at the Sean Hannity Show.
Stay right here.
Pags in for Hannity.
Always love being in for Sean.
800-941-7326-800-941-Sean.
Go to Hannity.com.
You can also go to joepags.com.
During the break, Ethan told me that you guys put together a montage about the whole Hunter Biden thing and about how he skirted the congressional subpoena.
And everybody but everybody who's on his side and who hates Trump has a problem with that unless it's a Biden doing it, Ethan Rowlett.
Do you think people who refuse to comply with congressional subpoenas should be prosecuted by the Justice Department and at the end of the day go to jail?
Yes.
If you act deliberately with sneering, cavalier contempt for the American people and their representatives, we will hold you in contempt.
In America, when you are subpoenaed to testify in court or in Congress, you show up, period.
That if we fail to hold C. Bannon accountable, that he will be the exception.
He will become the rule.
Either we are all equal before the law or none of us is.
This is the essence of our democracy.
Either we're all in this together, either the rule of law applies to everyone equally, or we lose out on a fundamental aspect of our democracy: that the rule of law applies to everyone, and no one is above that law.
Mr. Bannon stands alone in his complete defiance of our subpoena.
That's not acceptable.
No one in this country, no matter how wealthy or how powerful, is above the law.
And if he refuses the subpoena, like we expect him to continue to do, then we're left with no other choice than to ask the Justice Department.
Ethan, thank you.
I mean, it's amazing.
It's like these people don't know that we just heard them say this recently.
We just saw them on video saying this recently.
They think that we're just that dumb.
We're not playing this game.
A Hunter Biden is in contempt of Congress.
They need to charge him with it, bring his butt back in, and get it done right.
Lots more coming your way, including a Paggs parody off the top.
It's Joe Paggs in for Sean Hannity.
Stay right here.
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.
I'm Ben Ferguson, and I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So down a verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
What I told people, I was making a podcast about Benghazi.
Nine times out of ten, they called me a masochist, rolled their eyes, or just asked, why?
Benghazi, the truth became a web of lies.
From Prologue Projects and Pushkin Industries, this is Fiasco, Benghazi.
What difference at this point does it make?
▲
Export Selection