Sean Hannity Show - Supreme Battle - December 29th, Hour 2

All Episodes

Previous Next

Dec. 30, 2023 - Sean Hannity Show

39:54

Supreme Battle - December 29th, Hour 2

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

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.
	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.
	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.
	And welcome back to the Sean Hennedy Show.
	I'm Greg Jarrett, filling in for Sean.
	He's taking a couple of days off.
	I'm a frequent guest on this program, and I hope you'll pick up my new book, The Constitution of the United States and Other Patriotic Documents, available in bookstores nationwide.
	Or you can order it online, have it delivered the next day.
	So you've probably heard the news.
	Maine's Democratic Secretary of State, Sheena Bellows is her name, has removed former President Donald Trump from the state's presidential primary ballot ballot.
	She did so under her interpretation of the Constitution's insurrection clause under the 14th Amendment.
	In other words, she mangled the law and contorted the facts to unilaterally decide this on her own.
	And of course, it follows a ruling earlier this month by the Colorado Supreme Court that also booted Trump from the ballot there under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, the same insurrection cause.
	So here is Maine Secretary of State Sheena Bellows explaining herself.
	It's a very detailed decision.
	We lay out why under Maine law the Secretary of State has the authority, indeed the obligation, I'm duty-bound to make this determination.
	We also, I rather um laid out that the record demonstrates that in fact the events of January 6, 2021, which were unprecedented and tragic, uh, were an insurrection in the meeting of section three of the 14th Amendment.
	And finally, uh in reviewing the facts presented, the evidence, the law, the history.
	Um we determined uh under section three of the 14th amendment that Mr. Trump engaged in insurrection, and therefore it was disclosed.
	So that's the main secretary of state, Sheena Bellows, um, elected by Democrats in the state legislature.
	Now bear in mind, she's not a lawyer.
	She's not a constitutional expert.
	This is her interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
	And she had no access to relevant evidence, either incriminating or exculpatory.
	She simply, by fiat, decided that she's gonna decide who's the next president of the United States and booting Trump from the ballot.
	You got you gotta uh admire her chutzpah for for making a decision like that.
	Joining me now uh to talk about it is Brett Tolman is a former federal prosecutor.
	He is a lawyer, ladies and gentlemen.
	He knows a thing or two about the Constitution, unlike Sheenabello's.
	He served as the U.S. attorney for the state of Utah.
	So Brett, thanks for taking their time.
	Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire have rejected this crazy idea of removing Trump from the ballot.
	Colorado and Maine did the opposite.
	They've kicked Trump off the presidential ballot.
	The Republican Party in Colorado has already appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court two days ago.
	I read their brief.
	It's well argued.
	Isn't this a case that the high court really has to take?
	It's too important to ignore.
	Yeah, Greg, thanks for having me on.
	It's it's quite stunning, actually, to talk about uh, you know, what the Secretary of State in Maine decided to do.
	And it's it's fascinating to me because she's right, she does have authority.
	She has authority to determine if someone is 35 years of age, lived here for 14 years, and is a natural-born citizen.
	And that's the authority she has, and there's a reason why it's a simple check your box type of authority to see if someone is a legitimate candidate or not for president.
	Those are the only requirements.
	Doesn't matter if he's been convicted of a felony, doesn't matter if there's accusations that he he did was inappropriate on January 6th and encouraged what happened.
	There aren't any findings here.
	And you can't, as a Secretary of State, expand your role to anything more than procedural.
	And that's what she's done.
	So the Supreme Court is probably now, you know, was anticipating it would be dealing with factual analysis and reasoning, legal reasoning, is now um faced with the challenge of jumping inside the head of a Secretary of State who's expanded her authority and by fiat, as you said, decided these things based on um no access to any of the evidence or any reasoning of the law behind it.
	You know, if I were uh sitting on the high court wearing a black robe, I'd probably in one line say that Sheena Bellows, Secretary of State in Maine, is not competent to make this decision.
	Uh you know, look, under the guise of protecting democracy, Colorado and Maine both are actually undermining the most fundamental right of democracy.
	That is the right to vote for the candidate of their choice.
	It is enshrined in our Constitution.
	And to accomplish their nefarious goal of what is, in essence, ballot rigging, these Democrat-controlled states are bastardizing Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment, the insurrection clause.
	Trump hasn't been charged or tried or convicted of insurrection.
	Why?
	Because the facts and evidence don't support it.
	If there was evidence supporting insurrection, he would have been charged.
	So by announcing unilaterally that he's guilty of insurrection.
	Aren't these states, Brett, blatantly violating that same amendment depriving Trump of his due process rights guaranteed by the 14th Amendment?
	Well, that's right.
	And and what we have is we have a situation that's very grim.
	It's it's it's comical in its absurdity, but in its effect, it can be quite damaging to our country.
	There is no question that under the same rationale being used by this Secretary of State and by Michigan Supreme Court, um, or Colorado, excuse me, that it it there's no question that the same rationale could be used against the lack of effort by President Biden to secure our border and allowing an an infiltration of of enemy state citizens into this country.
	There's no question you could you could use the same rationale, but none of us on the conservative side would encourage or or or would accept that sort of bastardization of what the law is.
	But but the left doesn't Care about that, Greg, because the left long ago has indicated that they are willing to set aside the rule of law.
	They'll do executive orders when they know they'll get reversed.
	They'll issue policies coming from regulatory b bodies that they know will get reversed, and thank goodness we have the Supreme Court that's there and ready and has to be, you know, you know, so sensitive to the use of power in a way that is damaging everything they accuse the right of doing, and Donald Trump included, they are doing themselves.
	And and this last point, Greg, they needed a conviction or charge at least of insurrection.
	It wasn't done.
	They couldn't get a grand jury to do it.
	They don't have a conviction from Jack Smith or any of the others, so now they're desperate, and the Secretary of the State are stepping up to do it because they don't care about the rule of law.
	You know, this is the stuff of tyrants and dictators.
	I mean, this is what Vladimir Putin did.
	He put his main political opponent, Nelvaney, in a gulag in the Arctic.
	Where he remains to this day.
	You know, are we really going to go down that road?
	But the other part of the equation, Brett, in addition to to totally contorting the insurrection clause is the Colorado and Maine are both ignoring the plain meaning of the 14th Amendment.
	It spells out the specific officers that can be disqualified.
	It says only representatives, senators, and electors.
	It doesn't say president.
	President is not included for a very good reason.
	He holds a uniquely singular position as chief executive.
	He takes an oath that's different and separate from the officers of the United States oath.
	So these states are writing in a key word that doesn't exist in the amendment for the sole purpose of excluding Donald Trump, aren't they?
	Yeah, they are.
	And in fact, this is the very heart of what I think the Supreme Court, you nailed it, what the Supreme Court is going to do.
	The Supreme Court is going to say, is going to give clarity that this is not an appointed officer's position.
	And the reason is that they don't want to include presidential elections in that, those that are running for president, is because they want this to be a president elected by the people.
	And if the people choose somebody who might have been on the wrong side of a political issue or not, but he can muster the votes, then that is who will govern as president of the United States.
	And they foresaw that just as they foresaw that they shouldn't make it a, you know, you shouldn't eliminate a candidate if he has a felony.
	They did that on purpose because they knew that the executive branch would be in charge of charging people.
	And what did we see?
	We see Joe Biden now.
	There's revelations that he had more conversations with Merrick Garland and those in DOJ and wanted DOJ to go after his political enemy.
	So we are living in a time in which all rules are thrown aside, facts don't matter, the law doesn't matter right now.
	They have to maintain all of this power.
	And why?
	They're afraid Trump is going to win.
	speaking of ignoring the law let me switch subjects jack smith a special counsel latest court filing in the washington d_c_ prosecution of donald trump for allegedly attempting to overturn the election results Was given to the trial court judge on Wednesday.
	Smith wants to silence Donald Trump from arguing that the case against him is politically motivated and selective prosecution.
	Which, by the way, is an affirmative procedural defense that would negate the charges.
	It's ironic, isn't it, Brett, that the special counsel is accusing Trump of injecting politics into a case that already reeks of partisan politics?
	Yeah, this is no different than uh, you know, me as a federal prosecutor running into the courtroom on a bank robbery case and and asking the judge to not allow evidence of an alibi on the defense that the defense has.
	I mean, this is that level of absurdity, and it's embarrassing, but at the same time, he has a judge that he knows he can get away with these kind of things, and and so he's pushing the envelope.
	Yeah, I mean, Smith wants to be both prosecutor and defense attorney in the same case.
	Depriving Trump of presenting a defense of his own choosing.
	Shouldn't Donald Trump be permitted to present a full picture of what happened on January 6th?
	I mean, isn't that sort of fundamental?
	Yes, and I'm not aware of any rule of evidence, and you and I both, you know, we've studied those.
	We we've had to deal with those.
	There's not a rule of evidence out there that doesn't allow for the defendant to actually attack the government for their motivation and their bias in bringing a case.
	That's just that's a staple of defense to show a jury that the government has been jaded by something so significantly that they have ignored facts and the law, and so you should rule in favor of the defendant.
	That's that's actually defending an individual who's been accused of a crime.
	Well, this is exactly this the sort of antics that got Jack Smith roundly spanked unanimously by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Governor Bob McDonald case in Virginia.
	The guy doesn't learn from his own errors.
	Um Brett Tolman, thanks so much for being with us, former federal prosecutor, former U.S. attorney for Utah.
	Appreciate it.
	We're gonna pause, take quick break.
	I'm Greg Jarrett, filling in for Sean Hannity on the Sean Hannity Show.
	We'll be right back.
	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 Podcasts, or wherever you listen.
	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 Mayfock from Prologue Projects and Pushkin Industries.
	This is Fiasco Benghazi.
	What difference at this point does it make?
	Yeah, that's right.
	Locker up.
	Listen to Fiasco Benghazi 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 to a 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.
	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 Podcasts, or wherever you listen.
	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 Nayfock from Prologue Projects and Pushkin Industries.
	This is Fiasco Benghazi.
	What difference at this point does it make?
	Yeah, that's right.
	Locker up.
	Listen to Fiasco Benghazi 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 Dell a verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
	Welcome back to the Sean Hannity show.
	I'm Greg Jarrett.
	We're talking about, you know, this decision.
	Uh the screwball decision by the Secretary of State in Maine, uh a Democrat elected by the legislature to unilaterally kick Donald Trump off the presidential primary ballot in the state of Maine.
	Uh joining us now uh on our phone lines is Stan from Washington State.
	Hey Stan, how are you?
	Happy New Year.
	Hey.
	Thanks for taking my call.
	Hello?
	Yeah, do you have a question or comment?
	Yes, sir.
	Yeah, my question is in the main decision, the last paragraph says that she will suspend implementing the decision pending appeal.
	Right.
	That's basically the same thing the Colorado court did.
	So in reporting that Trump is off the ballot, is that not incorrect?
	I mean, that's an incorrect uh reporting, isn't it?
	That he's not officially off the ballot until the Superior Court says he's off the ballot, and all these news agencies that are reporting he's off the ballot are actually reporting wrong.
	Well, it's a contingency, depending upon uh whether the Supreme Court takes the case or lets the lower court uh, well, in this case, the Colorado Supreme Court, um uh stand without you know making a move.
	So it's a contingent uh decision.
	But my my question the the second part of my question would be but everybody's hearing he's off the ballot.
	And if words mean things, and because the Democrats and the news media control the narrative, that's all they're gonna hear is that he's off Colorado ballot, he's off main ballot.
	There's possibly 20 other states that are gonna try and do that like that.
	Well, look, the decision is firm until it's executed, depending upon the contingency.
	And so, yeah, I mean, I suppose you could argue that it's it's not being fully reported accurately.
	Um, Stan, thanks for giving us a call.
	We're gonna take another break.
	We'll be right back more of the Sean Hannity show.
	I'm Greg Jarrett filling in.
	And welcome back to the Sean Hannity Show.
	I'm Greg Jarrett filling in for Sean.
	I'm a Fox News legal analyst and author of the new book just came out last month called The Constitution of the United States and Other Patriotic Documents.
	These are truly the most important speeches, addresses, letters, uh historic documents, sixty-five different ones uh throughout more than uh two centuries of America's great history.
	And I hope you'll pick it up in uh the bookstore nearest you, or you can order it online.
	You can follow me on X, formerly Twitter at Greg Jarrett.
	Also check out my website where you can listen to my podcast called The Brief.
	The website is theGregJarrett.com.
	We've been talking about the decision uh by the state of Maine following Colorado to kick Donald Trump off the ballot.
	In the state of Michigan, though, the Supreme Court ruled just the opposite that Donald Trump indeed belongs on the presidential ballot.
	I want to turn now to my friend and colleague, one of the great investigative reporters in America, John Solomon, who is editor-in-chief of just the news.
	It's a website you've got to begin every day by reading.
	It has really the most important news and insight of the day.
	And John is also host of Just News, not noise.
	You got to check it out.
	So John, thanks for taking a few minutes.
	Happy New Year to you and your family.
	You did an interview with former President Donald Trump right after the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that he should be on the presidential ballot.
	What did uh Donald Trump tell you?
	Well, he said, listen, that uh it was expected that anyone who looks at the law realizes that he can't be uh kicked off the ballot if he meets all the criteria, and that it would leave uh states who kick him off like Colorado to be a laughing stock and embarrassment to the whole world.
	America used to be the democracy, the constitutional republic that other countries looked toward as a beacon of hope and the shining light of fairness in politics, and he worries that things like the uh what has happened in Colorado, now Maine, uh, will tarnish that legacy will will discourage other countries who are looking to adopt democracy or uh a constitutional republic.
	Uh they'll see what's going on in America saying that's not what America's about.
	We don't want to do that anymore.
	So I think he really saw it in a global sense.
	Uh, he feels very confident it will be reversed, and he's not alone.
	A lot most of the legal experts I've talked to over the last week, uh starting with Colorado, continuing last night to Maine said that there are many clear avenues of an attack that the United States Supreme Court almost certainly will reverse the decisions that are now in Colorado and uh Maine.
	And I think most importantly, when people look at the amendment, the 14th Amendment that's being invoked here, the last line of the amendment is pretty clear.
	It says that Congress and only Congress has the right to enforce the provisions of his amendment.
	Uh that I think is going to become a major point of contention that says, hey, states like Colorado, your Supreme Court, and uh the uh uh appointed Democrat uh Secretary of State of Maine, you don't have the right under this amendment to make the determinations.
	I think a lot of people are thinking this is going to get reversed, and they hope it happens quickly.
	Uh, but President Trump seemed pretty confident he would win, and he was more worried about America's reputation on the global stage.
	Yeah, I because we look like such a banana republic for for doing this sort of thing.
	The the upside for Trump is that every time Democrats pull something like this, it it just angers a lot of voters, a lot of citizens who say to themselves, wait a minute, you're gonna deprive me of my constitutional right in a uh democracy to choose who should be president.
	That we're gonna leave this to four Democrats on the uh uh Supreme Court in Colorado and uh and a liberal Democrat Secretary of State in Maine to decide who should be president.
	I mean, and every time this happens, support for Trump seems to go up in the polls, doesn't it?
	It does.
	Yeah, I mean, some people talk about this as the Nelson Mandela effect, of course, very different circumstances, different country, different time frame.
	But there is this general feeling that in politics, voters should get to decide and not uh judges and unelected bureaucrats.
	And I think that that is building this concept that between Jack Smith and his prosecutions, the Georgia prosecution with Ronnie Willis, uh, and now these efforts to disqualify him from the ballot, that something very un-American is going on.
	Instead of trusting the American people to make their choice for president, there is a power structure, an elite elite power structure in America that's trying to make the decision for the American people, and it doesn't feel right, and it's engendering sympathy for Donald Trump.
	Donald Trump on his own isn't very sympathetic.
	He's brass, he's tough.
	He prides himself with his confidence and his toughness.
	But uh somehow Democrats have made him very sympathetic, starting with the mud shot and continuing through today, and I think it is backfiring on Democrats.
	I've talked to a lot of Democrats who privately say, My God, I wish we would just stop this.
	We're making it easier and easier for Trump to win.
	With Democrats, I think internally are having that conversation, like, boy, hey, how much further can we make this easy for Trump?
	Yeah, I mean, every stupid move like trying to kick him off the ballot, every indictment solidifies uh and grows support for for Donald Trump.
	People see him as a victim of dirty politics by Democrats.
	Um there's this other element too, Greg, that I, you know, when you talk to polsters, there's also this curiosity like why are so many people in Washington, which no one likes in Washington.
	Everybody who lives outside of D.C. doesn't like or trust Washington.
	Why are so many people in Washington trying to keep Donald Trump off the ballot?
	And it's actually created this level of intrigue, like, hmm, maybe he's up to something good because the rascals I don't like in Washington seem to want to get rid of him.
	You know, that's an excellent point.
	That's a that's a great point.
	Um John, you also spoke with Donald Trump about the latest court filing from special counsel Jack Smith, in which uh you know, the special counsel asked the Washington, D.C. judge who's hyper biased, to prevent Trump from arguing in court that he's the victim of selective prosecution and to prevent him from quote uh injecting partisan political attacks into the case.
	Uh specifically, you know, Smith wants to preclude any evidence of security and intelligence failures by the Capitol Police, other DC officials that allow the riot to unfold.
	But John, isn't it true, as you've reported in depth, that there is documentary and testimonial evidence that those failures occurred.
	Yeah, oh, absolutely.
	Uh starting with uh Congressman Rodney Davis a year ago and continuing this year, uh, with Congressman Laudermilk, the chairman of the House administration's oversight subcommittee.
	Uh really strong evidence has emerged, and it's documentary evidence, it's testimonial evidence, it's contemporaneous documents.
	What does it show?
	It shows Capitol Police made several blunders, beginning with the fact that their own intelligence division uh knew that there were very serious, actionable intelligence suggesting that January 6th is going to be violent.
	They didn't pass that up the chain so that the proper security uh posture could be set up that day.
	Secondly, uh, the Capitol Police Chief wanted uh the National Guard to be there.
	He was turned down by the Capitol Police Port, which reported at that time to Nancy Pelosi.
	But even more importantly, uh you see the Pentagon offered on January 3rd.
	There is a Capitol Police document.
	I'm one of the few reporters who've been able to get this.
	Capitol Police Timeline clearly shows that on January 3rd, that uh the uh Pentagon, the Trump Pentagon, called the Capitol Police and said, Don't you want the National Guard?
	If so, let us know.
	We want to send it to you.
	So they actually took the initiative to try to convince Capitol Police to take uh the National Guard.
	The Capitol Police wanted it.
	The Nancy Pelosi political infrastructure in the Capitol turned it down.
	And you take those two episodes, and you you uh I've asked almost every security expert who's looked at all the new evidence.
	Was January 6th preventable?
	And uh the answer is yes.
	If the intelligence had been acted on, if the security posture had been changed, if the riot gear had been accessible instead of locked in a bus that no one could find the keys for, if um the National Guard had been deployed, almost certainly the Capitol wouldn't have been overrun.
	That's what the experts say, including the police chief who uh presided that day, Stephen Sun, who came on my TV show and radio show recently and said January 6th was now we now know it was a preventable episode.
	Donald Trump wants to be able to posit that and say, listen, I tried to tell people to go there peacefully.
	The Capitol Police got over on not because of my words and actions, but because of the incompetence of the security structure.
	And Jack Smith says I don't want to let the president go there.
	I don't want that let that potentially exculpatory evidence ever reach the jury.
	So he so Smith is special counsel, doesn't want the jury to see the full picture of what happened on January 6th in his prosecution of Trump over January 6th.
	He specifically states he doesn't want any of the security failure issues to be brought before the jury.
	He thinks it's prejudicial.
	A lot of people say, well that's exculpatory.
	That's Brady evidence.
	That's something that in our court system we always allow defendants to bring to their defense and put before the jury.
	Jack Smith says I don't want any of that.
	I consider that to be politics.
	It's going to be very interesting.
	Jack Smith has a lot of issues to litigate.
	The evidence will become later.
	I think the immunity issues are first and the free speech issues are first, but at some point these issues of what he's trying to do the trial system, what he's trying to keep to the jury not only going to be interesting to the appellate court and the Supreme Court potentially, it's another example that reinforces in a lot of everyday Americans' minds something weird going on.
	We always let defendants put on exculpatory evidence.
	Why don't they want Donald Trump to put on an exculpatory defense?
	Because Smith wants to really skip the trial or have just sort of a nominal trial and move right to the hanging you know I mean that's that's what uh special counsel Jack Smith is all about and it's one of the reasons why the U.S. Supreme Court um unanimously overturned his prosecution of Governor Bob McDonald but it was too late.
	I mean Smith single handedly ruined the life of Bob McDonald financially personally politically a lot of people's short list maybe a VP candidate someday some people saw him as a presidential candidate.
	He had the military background, the successful record in Virginia, and Jack Smith took him out.
	And he never recovered politically, even though he ultimately had his innocence reestablished.
	But this is the sort of concern that when we talk about weaponization of the Justice Department, and, you know, it's sort of become a political term now, and people glaze, their eyes glaze over, depending on what side of the political you are on.
	But this is the sort of consequences.
	We're driving people who could be future leaders of the country out on charges of death.
	don't stand up that don't hold up.
	It happened to Eric Grightons in Missouri he got kicked out as governor and it turned out the entire case brought by a Soros funded prosecutor the evidence never existed as charged in the indictment that got reversed and the prosecutor ultimately got punished but Eric Grighton's never recovered politically either the choices that Americans are having to for their political leaders are being thwarted or being shrunk by a political elite establishment in the Justice Department and these local prosecutors and I think that's why Americans are so concerned.
	That's what weaponization ultimately does it thwarts Americans from making the choices they want to make for elections and their political leadership.
	Yeah and and so you've got unscrupulous unprincipled prosecutors who are more than willing to has they won't hesitate to manipulate the law and contort the facts to achieve the prosecutorial goal that they want regardless of innocence.
	I mean that's that's really what's going on here.
	I had uh I just recently retired FBI agent who worked a couple cases uh in the sphere including Russia occlusion say to me that what concerned him more than anything was that winning mattered more than the fair administration of justice and that all of the sayings inscripted on the building at the Justice Department all of the principles enshrined in the Constitution were being thrown aside just to score political wins and instead it turned his stomach just couldn't be part of that operation anymore.
	It is the duty of a prosecutor to see that justice is done not to rack up a prosecutorial win.
	John Solomon just the news John thanks so much have a happy new year.
	We'll be right back.
	Fred.
	Fred.
	Immigration, jobs, health care.
	The news you care about is right here.
	Hannity Watch is on.
	laughs
	You know most people they have no idea there's an invisible gap in their home's protection now your home your equity is at risk this invisible threat is house stealing from FBI crime stories and I quote con artists they pick a house it can be a Vacation home, a rental property, or the home someone is living in right now, they transfer the deed of the house into their name by obtaining the forms.
	They use fake IDs, filing the paperwork with proper authorities.
	Guess what?
	They steal your home.
	End quote.
	Now, once this step is complete, they take out loans using your home as collateral.
	They can even sell your home.
	You need to protect your home from this invisible gap.
	Check on your home's title right now when you go to Home Title Lock.com.
	Be sure to use the promo code Sean, that's S E A N, and they will send you a complete title scan of your home's title.
	And your first 30 days of triple luck title protection is absolutely free.
	Home Titolock.com, HometidLock.com, promo code Sean.
	Jarrett filling in for Sean.
	Let's go directly to our phone lines.
	Joining us from Virginia is Jim.
	Jim, um, you know, happy new year and thanks for being with us.
	We got about a minute here, so you gotta be quick.
	What's your question or comment?
	Thank you, Greg, and uh great topics today.
	I always appreciate your legal insight.
	I'm a fellow lawyer, and I always agree with you, so uh that's good.
	Uh uh just wondered in the Alvin Bragg case, one of one of the earliest uh examples of prosecutorial abuse, uh, where the you know New York uh city district attorney brought uh state criminal charges on a civil matter, tried to bootstrap federal charges.
	But Governor DeSantis of Florida immediately said he would not cooperate in any extradition proceedings.
	And I've always thought that the Trump legal team and Trump uh should have fought extradition, and it would have got that case elevated to federal court immediately, maybe uh a decision on uh jurisdiction standing, those sorts of things.
	And but but Trump uh waived extradition and uh you know appeared in court and and now you've got it starting at the lowest level, it's gonna have to work its way up.
	But I just I just always what's your thought about that?
	He listened you're making a great procedural point.
	Uh he could have done that, but I think he looked at the larger picture, and that uh it would appear to be to voters that he you know he's he he doesn't want to face the charges, and I think he does because he knows those charges are completely bogus, and they are.
	I'm Greg Jurrett, filling in for Sean Hannity on the Sean Hannity Show.
	We'll be right back.
	You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
	We got you.
	Now I'm Carol Markovich.
	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.
	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.
	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.

▲