Sean Hannity Show - Eric Eggers - January 9th, Hour 2

Jan. 11, 2024 - Sean Hannity Show

35:07

Eric Eggers - January 9th, Hour 2

Eric Eggers, VP of the Govt Accountability Institute and Host of the Drill Down and Gregg Jarrett, Fox News Legal Analyst and Best Selling Author take a very close look at Nathan Wade and Fani Willis (Fah-nee) and the complete corruption and deception that happened on Willis’ watch; totally orchestrated by her. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	This is an iHeart podcast.
	Well, if you could be with us, here's our toll-free telephone number.
	It's 800-941-Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
	Well, an issue in terms of the Trump legal case as it relates to the state of Georgia and Fannie Willis has now, well, popped its head up.
	The Hill reporting that Fulton County District Attorney Fannie Willis had an improper, quote, clandestine relationship with the married special prosecutor, apparently a guy who assisted in securing the Georgia grand jury indictment against former President Donald Trump.
	And this court filing made by a former Trump 2020 campaign official, Michael Roman, is arguing that Willis should be disqualified from the case and the charges against him dropped because the DA chose to appoint a romantic partner who at all times was relevant to this prosecution.
	And apparently, according to this report, it goes on that Roman contends in this case that Nathan Wade, a private attorney with the Atlanta-based Wade and Campbell firm, used some of the $654,000 in legal fees that he was paid for by Fulton County's DA's office.
	I would assume that has to go through Fannie Willis, but paid that amount of money in legal fees for his work on the Trump case.
	And anyway, then was taking Willis on lavish vacations to Napa Valley in California and Florida and the Caribbean.
	Quote, Mr. Roman moves the court for an order disqualifying the district attorney, her office, and the special prosecutor from further prosecuting the incident matter on the grounds that the DA and the special prosecutor have been engaged in an improper relationship.
	What does this mean?
	Now, former President Trump insisted that the case against him and several other Georgia others in Georgia in an effort to overturn the 2020 election results should be dropped after this is filed.
	Here to weigh in on the legal side, the ethical side of all of this, we have Greg Jarrett, Fox News contributor, author of the best-selling book that he just had out about his hero, Clarence Darrow, and also Eric Eggers is the vice president of Government Accountability Institute and the host of the Drill Down podcast.
	Welcome both of you back to the program.
	Let's talk about this from a legal standpoint.
	So my understanding is Fannie Willis's office hires this outside firm to get their insight, counsel, as it relates to this Trump election case in Georgia.
	Then apparently there's a personal relationship, a massive amount of money, nearly $700,000 is paid.
	And apparently they're trying to make the case that that money was used improperly for vacations that benefited not only the lawyer, but Fannie Willis herself.
	On the surface, it doesn't look good.
	Is it a legal issue, Greg Jarrett?
	Oh, it absolutely is.
	I think the next step is for the trial judge to take this seriously, hold a hearing, demand answers, because as you've described it and the other reporting, Sean, the conflict of interest here is both obvious and severe.
	But the judge should do something else.
	If he is not satisfied with the answers, he should refer these accusations against Willis and her paramour to the state attorney general Christopher Carr for immediate investigation.
	The DA can't investigate herself.
	That means it always goes to the Attorney General.
	And I think any trial should be paused until that's finished.
	And the public can be assured that this prosecution against Donald Trump was not unduly influenced by unethical, if not corrupt, conduct.
	Because, you know, as alleged, and of course, if proven, Willis's actions require disqualification from the case.
	And potentially, the charges dropped against Trump and all other defendants.
	This appears to be a very severe breach of the public's trust and the integrity of the case.
	Eric Edgars, let's get your account on this.
	Well, I want to give a little bit of a context, Sean, because you noted that Mr. Wade was married when he entered into his contract with Fulton County, and that's correct barely.
	He actually filed for divorce the day after he entered into his contract on November 1st, 2021.
	So it's almost like his award of this money was like a free divorce present from his then-girlfriend, potentially.
	And as you noted, yeah, he took the $650,000 and spent some of it on trips to Napa, on these cruises.
	And it's been reported, give credit where credit's due by the Atlanta Journal Constitution, that some of the money that was sent to Wade from Ms. Willis could constitute a federal crime, could be honest services fraud.
	It could also be prosecuted under the same federal racketeering statute they're attempting to charge Donald Trump under right now, ironically.
	So this is really bad.
	And, you know, one of the things we talked about on the podcast today is the fact that over half of the world's population is going to vote this year.
	People still pay attention to the United States and they think our elections are among the freest and the fairest.
	Russia stuff, right?
	This is putting your political opponent in jail.
	This is having someone use their boyfriend and then send you money that you're paying him to charge the opponent of the president for questioning the validity, I think, correctly, of the previous election.
	So this is the kind of thing that if this behavior continues and if Greg Jarrett's recommendations aren't followed, this is only going to continue to undermine, I think, the world's perspective on how the United States conducts elections.
	All right, let's talk about, you know, what are the next steps here?
	And maybe we should just go back and take a little trip down memory lane as it relates to Fannie Willis.
	You know, this is the same person that dodged the question if she had contact with the special counsel Jack Smith.
	And on the Trump indictment, she said the law is completely nonpartisan.
	Listen.
	Contact with the special counsel about the overlap between this indictment and the federal indictment.
	I'm not going to discuss our investigation at this time.
	The arguments made by former President Trump that this is a politically motivated indictment.
	I make decisions in this office based on the facts and the law.
	The law is completely nonpartisan.
	That's how decisions are made in every case.
	To date, this office has indicted since I've been sitting as a district attorney over 12,000 cases.
	This is the 11th RICO indictment.
	We followed the same process.
	We look at the facts, we look at the law, and we bring charges.
	Now, there are very few people left in this case that haven't made deals, Greg Jarrett.
	And the deals for most people ended up with no jail time at all and an apology to the people of Georgia.
	Okay, that's all well and fine, but how do you have a RICO case if you don't have a conspiracy?
	Where's the conspiracy part of this?
	You don't have it, although not all.
	There's only been a handful of people who've entered pleas.
	But those pleas and the entire prosecution against those individuals could be vacated, even though they pled guilty.
	And they did so for personal and probably financial reasons.
	Look, you just heard Fannie Willis say the law is nonpartisan.
	She's right.
	The problem is she's partisan, and she's not supposed to be.
	Her job is to see that justice is done, not to use the law as a cudgel for political reasons.
	This case was always tanded, Sean, by political prejudice, manipulated evidence, and what I've long argued is a complete contortion of the racketeering law.
	But now, given these accusations, and again, we have to wait to see if they're proven.
	But this resembles a screwball comedy starring Fannie Willis and her surreptitious lover.
	Was it Tillow Talk that led to the exaggerated charges?
	And I'll add one other thing to the excellent question.
	By the way, doesn't the number seem a little outrageous to you for a DA's office to subcontract out work in a prosecution case of nearly $650,000 plus dollars?
	It seems like a big number to me to be subcontracted out.
	It's a huge number for a guy who's not very experienced, quite frankly, which invites the question, what's really going on here?
	You know, if Willis paid her lover $654,000 in taxpayer money and some of it was used for the two of them to take these lavish vacations together, that smacks of misappropriation of public funds.
	As Eric pointed out, honest services fraud.
	Willis might want to consult a criminal lawyer for some advice because she and her lover kind of looks like they colluded to nail Trump.
	Were they running a criminal enterprise that constitutes racketeering, a legitimate question.
	Eric Edgars, you see the same thing?
	I think that we have real questions.
	As Greg Jarrett pointed out, he was inexperienced as Nathan Wade.
	He'd actually never prosecuted a felony case before, which I think makes his inclusion in this unprecedented prosecution of the former president of the United States particularly more galling.
	Not only that, his appointment to the receipt of this contract with Fulton County actually occurred without the approval of the Fulton County board.
	So it was in violation of the law.
	And you talk about the amount of money he's taken.
	It's a great point.
	And the number of people are charged.
	What if actually the most honest explanation and the easiest explanation is the fact that, I mean, Mike Roman, the person whose lawyer is filing this motion that's kind of bringing these allegations to light, he was one of the people that ended up being charged despite the advice of the grand jury.
	And so then the question becomes, did more people have charges brought to them not because the evidence suggested it, but because the more people involved in the case might have actually increased the fee for Fannie Willis' boyfriend?
	I mean, that's a real question I think she and other people have to answer.
	And it just put an even more illegitimate light into a process that already made the United States look like a banana republic when you're bringing these charges against the former president of the United States for, I think, elevating real questions about the integrity of the United States democracy.
	All right, quick break more on the case in Georgia with Greg Jarrett and Eric Edgars.
	Then your call's coming up, 800-941-Sean is our number as we continue.
	Alerting you to all the ways the government wants to butt into your life.
	This is the Sean Hannity Show.
	Hey, Sean Hannity here.
	So let's talk about car parts.
	Now, the truth is, the price of many car parts has now increased by almost 100%.
	What does that mean?
	What does that mean?
	That means when you need a car repair, you could be paying double plus the cost of labor.
	Now, unless you call my friends at CarShield, now CarShield customers like myself, I don't worry about the cost of car parts.
	Why?
	Because with their varying plans, they can cover up to 5,000 parts and systems.
	And CarShield administrators, they handle all these costly repair bills.
	But a shortage of car parts in America has now led to rising prices all over the place and protecting your wallet from those high costs at a price locked in that's guaranteed at a rate that's locked in as long as you cover your car.
	Well, guess what?
	That's a good deal.
	Call our friends at CarShield now and don't let the price of car repairs drive you into debt.
	Call CarShield now, 800-587-5060.
	That's 800-587-5060-800-587-5060 or Carshield.com slash Hannity.
	All right, we'll continue now with Eric Eggers and with Greg Jarrett.
	Well, now the issue was argued earlier today in court on presidential immunity, and that is the appellate court because the Supreme Court said they're not going to expedite that case and take it earlier.
	It's going to have to go through the court system.
	All of these cases seem to have been delayed significantly.
	I think we thought towards, I don't know, the fall of last year, Greg Jarrett, that Donald Trump would likely be facing four criminal trials, as many as four, in the lead up to this election.
	I'm not sure if he's going to face any of them at this point.
	You know, in terms of timing, what do you see?
	Well, I think you may well be correct.
	You know, the wheels of justice grind fairly slowly, and that's because people accused of crimes are entitled to argue their presumption of innocence and contest the validity and integrity of the charges against them.
	And, you know, sometimes that goes up on appeal.
	Sometimes it's delayed for other factors.
	You know, just because justice is a little late doesn't mean we should ignore it.
	And, you know, but as for today's hearing, it was abundantly clear to me that the three-judge panel was incredibly skeptical of the Trump lawyer's arguments.
	I think it's a tough case to argue absolute immunity.
	There may be some limited immunity, but it sounded as though this panel is going to rule against Trump.
	And then it moves either to a full Circuit Court of Appeal panel, which I think is 11 currently, or it goes to the U.S. Supreme Court.
	There's no guarantee the high court will take the case, but all of this takes time.
	Does the president have unlimited immunity?
	I mean, they brought up, I thought, what were absurd hypotheticals today?
	You know, are you saying that if the president orders a SEAL team six member to assassinate somebody, that the president would have to be impeached before you could ever consider prosecution?
	What did you make of that argument?
	Yeah, it was a very creative argument, to be sure, as you suggest.
	The law, this is unproven ground.
	It is what lawyers call a case of first impression.
	It's never been litigated as to whether a president has absolute immunity for criminal acts that occurred during his presidency.
	Civil acts?
	Yes, that was litigated in the 1980s in the Nixon Fitzgerald case.
	And the president does enjoy immunity in civil lawsuits against him for actions that took place within the outer scope of his duties as president.
	In this particular case, Trump is arguing, I was upholding the law when I believed there was evidence of a rigged election and ballot irregularities in voting fraud.
	He's required, he's duty-bound to enforce the law.
	And so if that means calling into question in the very same manner Democrats have in the past, these voting irregularities, he's duty-bound to do that, isn't he?
	I would think, we'll give you the last word, Eric Eggers.
	Yeah, I think the evidence was there.
	Greg's the lawyer.
	I'm not.
	But I think we're continuing to see more and more questions.
	They have not fixed the issues that I think riddled the 2020 election.
	A town in Connecticut's having to recast the embarrassment election because they found people putting stacks of ballots in to ballot drop boxes.
	You know, that's the kind of thing Donald Trump was asking for evidence of, but we weren't able to get the videos of those drop boxes in Georgia.
	And so rather than, and I think Greg Jarrett's inside on this is good, but I think it's important that programs like yours continue to elevate this issue because you can't let them get away with it.
	All right.
	Appreciate it.
	Eric Eggers, Greg Jarrett.
	Happy New Year to both of you.
	Thank you both for being with us.
	When we come back, we'll hit the phones.
	All right, 25 to the top of the hour.
	Our toll-free number is 800-941-Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
	Interesting exchange between Speaker Mike Johnson and Jerry Nadler over the issue of illegal immigrants being allowed across the border so they can vote.
	But Democrats, you're going to love this exchange.
	Listen.
	Can I ask, Mr. Chairman, you're from New York.
	Thanks to New York City's council, beginning January 9th, 2023, more than 800,000 non-citizens will be eligible to vote in municipal elections in New York.
	Do you agree with that policy?
	No, non-citizens will not be eligible to vote in New York.
	They never have been.
	Well, they were in the 19th century eligible to vote in New York.
	No, this is a recent action.
	It was.
	That is not correct.
	Non-citizens have not been eligible to vote in New York or as far as I know in any other state since the 19th century.
	That's not true.
	The New York City Council voted in December to allow this.
	It begins January 9, 2023.
	Cities in Vermont and Maryland already allow this, and similar measures are under consideration in Illinois, Maine, and Massachusetts right now.
	The gentleman will yield.
	Yes.
	I believe those are considerations of allowing votes in municipal elections only.
	Right.
	But thank you.
	That's the point.
	Everybody wants to know at home, why would they allow this?
	Guys, they're allowing it because they're going to turn them into voters.
	They already are doing this in New York City, largest city in America.
	And this is the plan of our friends on this side to turn all the illegals into voters.
	That's it, folks.
	That's what's going on.
	That's the game.
	That's why the border's open.
	That's why they've dropped it.
	Look, I respect Ms. Lochron and all her work in this arena.
	Yes, I'll yield, Mr. Chairman.
	I'd love to hear what you have to say about this.
	As a New Yorker, I would love to think that New York is the entire country, but it is not.
	It is not.
	And consideration is being given to permitting non-citizens to vote in New York, and I believe in the capital city of Vermont.
	I forget which that is.
	But as much as I'd like to believe it, New York and Vermont are not the entire country.
	But, Mr. Chairman, that's the whole point.
	This is what's going on, folks, at home.
	If you're trying to figure this out, if you're scratching your heads, you're seeing the video, you see droves of people, 2.4 million people coming over the border illegally.
	The president allowing, the Democrats in charge of Congress are allowing it.
	The deal is they're going to turn them into voters.
	You just heard it.
	They don't have any problem with that.
	They celebrate it.
	What Democrats, you've got to understand what they've tried to do here is anybody that points out that there is a strategy that Democrats want illegal immigrants and they're aiding and abetting in their law breaking is just innocent and they want to help innocent people and they want to have better lives.
	That's the emotional argument.
	The problem is I'm not against immigration, but we have laws that govern this country.
	And the problem is the president is not upholding our laws and our Constitution, an oath that he made to the country.
	And he takes it a step further.
	He's doing what would get any of us arrested for for human trafficking by allowing illegal immigrants unvetted into this country from many top geopolitical foes, as we've been pointing out regularly.
	And then, of course, the taxpayers are on the hook for paying for shelter and food and education and health care and everything in between.
	And again, simple procedures can be put in place.
	The border he inherited was secure.
	So every argument that Maorkis is making, oh, well, Congress needs to change the law.
	Oh, we need comprehensive immigration reform.
	No, we need the Trump policies back because they inherited a secure border.
	You know, now we have 8.5 million people in this country illegally, many from our top geopolitical foes, as I keep saying.
	And, you know, the point of all of this is follow the law.
	If you don't like the law, we still are a constitutional republic, at least on paper.
	And there is, you know, this little concept known as co-equal branches of government.
	And the legislative branch has a role.
	And if you don't like the laws, you don't get to pick and choose which ones you're going to enforce or not enforce in the case of Joe Biden.
	Because I guarantee any of you listening to me, if you picked up people at the border the way the Biden administration is, not vetted, and you transported them to another part of the country, that would be called human trafficking in other circles.
	But without vetting the people at the border, then it becomes a national security threat, which is my biggest concern.
	And to ask people to come into the country legally is just smart to do.
	Vetting people is smart to do.
	Health checks are smart for our country, especially in the era of COVID, which apparently we've got a pretty new strain that's been not virulent, but it's been very contagious going around the country.
	I know a bunch of people that have gotten COVID for like the fifth time.
	It's just basic, simple common sense.
	And the way Democrats demagogue this is, oh, this is the great replacement theory.
	They don't want people, African Americans or black and brown people coming to the country and they think that they're going to take over the country.
	No, what Democrats are doing is they're aiding law breaking.
	And what Democrats will eventually try to do is offer amnesty.
	Now, amnesty is something of great worth and great value that probably 80% of the world would love to get if they could get a hold of it.
	If that happens and that'll be the next push, then Democrats will be saying to the people that they help break the law with and the people that they're offered something of great value to, well, you're not going to vote for those guys, are you?
	Because they're the ones that didn't want you to come into the country illegally and they're not the ones voting to make you citizens and give you amnesty and apply for citizenship.
	Oh, the great replacement theory.
	No, it's the law and order aspect of it.
	I don't care where people come from.
	Let's make sure you don't have radical associations, health issues, and you're not going to be a financial burden on the American people.
	It's really that simple.
	Mike in Texas.
	Mike, you're on the Sean Hannity show.
	Hi.
	How are you doing, sir?
	I'm good, sir.
	What's going on?
	Immigration for just a second.
	You were just doing a great job of it.
	But I'm kind of irritated with our general response to the immigration questions because we see the most important point right up front, which is the immigration system is based on laws.
	You covered that.
	And the laws worked pretty dadgum well under one administration, and they are completely dysfunctional under the current administration.
	So when it comes up that if we have a broken immigration system, the response should be, whoa, time out.
	You inherited a functioning system.
	What did you do to break it?
	And leave and not let them get off that point.
	What have you done to break a functioning system?
	The laws haven't changed.
	So what have you done to break the system?
	And that's where the discussion is.
	Well, you know the answer to your own question.
	I'll give you the microphone.
	Answer your own question.
	What did they do?
	I can tell you what they did.
	Most people listening know what they did.
	Yeah, exactly.
	And they know that.
	And they know that they don't have a good answer to that question.
	And that's why we need to never let them get off of that spot.
	I'll tell you a little story about Lord Wellington when he was prime minister.
	Okay.
	A guinea new young prime minister asking, Lord Wellington, how did you never lose a battle against Napoleon?
	And Lord Wellington looked at him and said, well, it was quite simple.
	He came at me in the same old way, and I beat him back in the same old way.
	And we're like the French.
	We're like the French.
	We go at them the same old way and they beat us back the same old way.
	We need to find the spot that they can't defend and that's where we focus.
	What did you do to break the system and make them admit that it wasn't broken when they inherited it?
	The fact that so many Democratic mayors, governors, officials are now dealing with the aftermath of nearly 10 million Biden illegal immigrants and they are so critical of it.
	It's going to be a top issue in this campaign.
	God forbid that I'm right and probably terror cells have mixed in with the population of people that probably just want better lives for themselves and their kids and listen to Joe who said, come in, come in, come over, come in.
	Guess what?
	When that happens, Joe will have blood on his hands.
	He'll be responsible for it because you're right.
	The state of Mexico policy worked.
	Building the border wall worked.
	We had secure borders.
	We had the lowest illegal immigration numbers under Donald Trump than we'd ever had.
	Good call, my friend.
	Appreciate it.
	By the way, reminder, our friends at Pre-Born Network of Clinics, they saved over 58,000 babies' lives last year using the science of 4D ultrasound.
	They introduced expecting moms for free to the miracle of birth within them.
	For example, Daisy and her husband had decided they didn't want to have kids.
	She finds out she's pregnant.
	She immediately thought about abortion.
	She and her husband, well, they met their baby on ultrasound at a pre-born clinic.
	They heard the heartbeat.
	Their hearts melted.
	They chose life.
	This is happening, you know, through the science of 4D ultrasound.
	Now, unlike Planned Parenthood, our friends at Pre-Born don't get a penny from the federal government.
	If you believe in the miracle of life and the sanctity of life, they count on your donations to continue this mission and this work of theirs that is absolutely stunning and powerful in terms of being successful.
	Expecting moms hear heartbeats.
	They see facial features.
	They can count fingers and toes, and you're more likely to keep the baby.
	Two ways to donate.
	Dial pound250, say the keyword baby, pound250, keyword baby, or on their website.
	It's preborn.com/slash Sean.
	All right, quick break, right back.
	We'll continue.
	800-941-Sean, if you want to be a part of the program or your call straight ahead as we continue.
	Up next, our final roundup and information overload hour.
	All right, back to our busy phones.
	Rhonda wants to suck up to Linda.
	So let's put Rhonda on.
	Rhonda, why are you sucking up to Linda?
	I kind of relate to her.
	Why do you relate to her?
	I mean, somebody good to relate to, but.
	You sound like you're talking about leprosy or something.
	I don't understand what's happening.
	You're like, oh, my God.
	What do you relate to with Linda?
	Yesterday, she was talking about New York.
	She was talking about how she will never give up on her state of New York and talking in particular about people who wanted to.
	Hey, Rhonda, Rhonda.
	Linda doesn't live in New York.
	She lives in Pennsylvania.
	To be clear, let's be clear, all right, because nuance is important, Rhonda.
	I lived in New York for a very long time, and then I decided that I didn't want heroin addicts on the lawn where my kids were going to play.
	So I live in Pennsylvania, but I work in New York City.
	I'm here today.
	I have the rat pictures to prove it if anybody needs.
	By the way, Rhonda, I sent her Sweet Baby James showed me this.
	Which actually came from Ethan, so it's full round robin on the team today.
	Okay, so it shows a homeless guy.
	Laying in a subway, and a guy with a camera walks over and just, you know, says, hey, are you okay?
	And literally 60 rats come flying out from underneath this guy's blanket.
	The rats were sleeping with the homeless guy.
	It's so disgusting.
	I'll show it on TV tonight.
	Yeah, I saw that too.
	That was disgusting.
	By the way, that almost made me want to move back to New York.
	I mean, it was such a beautiful sight.
	But my point was that we need more people like Linda, good people that will never give up and fight against these people who want to tear down our historical statues, good or bad.
	There are history.
	Well, she was saying that about, I guess, the William Penn.
	Yes.
	And did you hear, Rhonda, did you hear what happened?
	Yeah.
	They're not tearing it down because people were freaking out, which I have to be honest, I'm thrilled about because I was going down the protest this week.
	So I was like, I'm all in with this.
	This is great.
	There's nothing wrong with that peaceful protest.
	Go down and let them know.
	Whatever you do on your own time is separate and apart from anything to dealing with the schools.
	Unrelated to the Sean Hannity show, as a private citizen born and raised in the city of Philadelphia, I felt that William Penn's statue could stay as the state is his namesake.
	Forgive me for wanting to keep a statue.
	And she's also the tiger mom that's being investigated as a domestic terrorist by the FBI because she's at every school board meeting and her kid is only eight years old.
	Can you imagine those school board members?
	They know her by name and they're like, oh, no.
	Rhonda, do they know your name, Rhonda?
	Not yet.
	But hey, Sean, Sean, you're where's your fighting Irish spirit, man?
	Listen, I have a fighting Irish spirit, but you know what?
	There comes a time where I just face the truth.
	Know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.
	And the truth is, I don't think for the rest of my life, states like New York, New Jersey, Illinois, and California are ever going to make a turnaround at all.
	And if I did.
	Yeah, as long as good people do nothing, then you'll be correct.
	That's the point.
	We need more people like Linda.
	Well, then why the hell are you living out in California and lecturing me?
	Well, I'm going to make some changes.
	I'm going to try.
	I'm going to protest.
	I'm going to do my part.
	Oh, okay.
	You're going to, you're going to, but you haven't.
	So I don't know.
	I mean, I think you got to call us back after you've done things that have had a significant change.
	I don't think it's possible.
	Honestly, listen, there's certain times you just know that you lost.
	New York is lost.
	It's gone.
	I don't think it's going to ever return to its former greatness.
	All these Wall Street firms that are moving down to Florida, they've all been pushed out.
	You know, I've been playing the cuts of Andrew Cuomo, Kathy Hochl, the new governor.
	You know, get the hell out of here.
	You're not a New Yorker.
	Go down to Florida.
	I'm like, okay, I know when I'm not welcome.
	If I'm not welcome, I can appreciate that.
	Good luck.
	I wish you the best.
	I'm not leaving with a bad taste in my mouth.
	It's sad to me.
	A once great state is deteriorating.
	There's nothing I can do about it.
	I can't fix it.
	You know, Mark Simone was actually on the air the other day saying, oh, Hannity's going to be back.
	He'll be back.
	And I wrote him, I said, Mark, I'm never coming back.
	I am a full-time Florida resident.
	If I come back, it'll be to visit friends like on a weekend, but that'll be occasionally.
	That's not, I'm never going to live there again, ever.
	And honestly, it would be really awkward if he came back now because my pictures look so good in your office.
	And I just, I don't want to take them down.
	You know, it took me a long time to get them centered.
	And, you know, it's work.
	So you stole my office.
	I don't know if I would say stole so much as appropriated to a proper using party.
	You know, I think there's some finagling there.
	I better never show up and vaunt my office for a day.
	You'll love to throw pillows.
	They're great.
	Oh, God.
	800-941-Sean, our number.
	If you want to be a part of the program, listen, we all need personal security.
	You just have to have a plan.
	A what-if moment happens in your life.
	Somebody shows up at your home, your business, they want to bring harm to you, your family, your employees.
	What are you going to do?
	What is your plan?
	Now, I'm still and always have been a big believer in the Second Amendment.
	God forbid that moment comes.
	You need to defend your life, your family's life.
	Totally understandable, but I like choices.
	I like technology and I like options.
	And that's where Burner comes in.
	Burner launchers, BYRNA.
	Look, it looks like a handgun.
	The Mission 4 rifle looks like a rifle.
	The fact that they have pistols that are yellow, orange, pink, what other colors do they have?
	Well, actually, I just want to make a quick point for our New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania folks.
	The reason they have those colors is because black is illegal here.
	We are not allowed to have black.
	So they make these other colors because of the fact that they're required by law.
	So it's actually cool.
	Okay.
	And probably people that would then know that, oh, it's not, you know, a regular fire.
	A regular weather.
	Exactly.
	It's a non-lethal option.
	Here's the best part: it works.
	If you want to incapacitate a perpetrator with a burner pistol, easily, I hit a target 50 feet away and it releases two pepper sprays and tear gas.
	And it incapacitates even the strongest and the biggest of perpetrators, giving you time to get the police and get help and get assistance and get out of that situation.
	If you don't believe this technology is this great, take the Hannity Challenge.
	Go to their website, burner.com/slash Hannity, B-Y-R-N-A.com/slash Hannity, and you're going to see people that voluntarily took a shot from Burner and a projectile.
	They can't see.
	It is that effective.
	You're going to love it.
	Right now, you get 10% off mentioning my name, BYRNA.com/slash Hannity.
	Do it.
	Protect yourself, your family, your loved ones.
	Berner.com slash Hannity.
	Hey, Sean Hannity here for my friends at Lone Star Transfer.
	If you felt like booking your timeshare was difficult in the past, you know it's recently been almost impossible.
	Now, most clients are shocked to learn that their timeshare is now available to the public, and that severely limits booking options.
	Now, many owners have also reached out, and they're upset that their yearly dues have nearly doubled during the maintenance fee season.
	Now, for well over a decade, our friends at Lone Star Transfer, a family-owned company, they have had the pleasure of helping thousands and thousands of people legally and permanently get out of their never-ending timeshare fees.
	Now, Lone Star Transfer guarantees the release of all liability to your timeshare in writing and in a specific timeframe.
	Call my good friends for a free, no-obligation consultation.
	Write this down.
	Call today, 833-594-0075.
	833-594-0075.
	They're online at lone star transfer.com.

▲