All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 9, 2024 - Sean Hannity Show
32:20
Election Interference - February 8th, Hour 2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This isn't iHeart Podcast.
Well, we're coming to your city Gonna play our guitars and sing you a country song We'll all be inside.
High than the jail.
And if you want a little banging yin-yang, come along.
I hear from people in our caucus who talk to sources high up and say we need to make sure Sean Annity's not talking about this Laura Ingram because conservatives, that's why they kept it secret.
Every day between now and November, the American people are gonna know that the only reason the border is not secure is Donald Trump and his Maggie Republican friends.
No, we're talking about section three.
Please don't change the hypothetical.
Okay.
Please don't change the hypothetical.
I know I like doing it too, but please don't do it.
Only two hundred and seventy days left till the presidential election.
Yeah, we are coming.
Don't play our guitar saying you consciously.
From coast to coast.
From border to border.
From sea to shining sea.
Sean Hannity is on.
All right, thanks, Scott Shannon.
Hour two, Sean Hannity's show, our toll free numbers 800-941 Sean.
If you want to be a part of the program, uh we played a lot of these exchanges in the last hour.
Um fascinating arguments going back and forth in the Supreme Court today.
Uh as we already mentioned, it it looks like even the New York Times is conceding that uh Donald Trump is going to win this case.
What was was really kind of at times odd to me, it almost felt like the justices to uh to both lawyers on both sides were basically telling them what their arguments should be and what their arguments, you know, where their arguments are weak.
It was like it was like an academic exercise listening to all of this.
All right, joining us now is Chase.
He is the chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, and my own personal attorney, which by the way, that that's awful for you.
Now you've argued before the Supreme Court.
How many times have you argued cases yourself and how many cases have you been involved in?
Well, let's see.
The last one it was a three.
We had a three for the last time, so I think uh I've done twenty-four cases, argued seventeen.
Okay, so it by the way, that's not an easy environment for any lawyer to be in.
You've got nine justices, and they have no problem cutting you off mid-sentence before you even give an answer and then pulling you in a whole different direction.
It's a it's pretty challenging.
It is.
It's uh an invigorating uh hour or so, and it I think it was today as well.
I'm optimistic.
We represent the Colorado uh Republican Party, so we're a party in the case, although it was Donald Trump's lawyer that did the oral argument.
I think we're gonna win nine-zero uh on the issue of the president is not an officer uh of the United States because as John Roberts has written in opinions, um you do not elect uh officers of the United States.
You elect presidents, you elect, you know, vice presidents, you don't elect officers of the United States.
And so I think we win on that.
Uh the difficulty was that the lawyer representing President Trump hedged on that a bit, uh, even though that's where the court was going.
But at the end result, it's not gonna matter.
Uh I think we're gonna win it nine years.
Uh but that but the the I want to stop you there because what you're saying is very profound here.
Um, because uh this is what that Donald Trump's team had won before the Supreme Court of Colorado, you know, reversed it.
That was the argument that was settled with the with the lower court judge in that case.
Right, that uh the president was not an officer of the United States.
So in the brief that I filed uh on behalf of the Colorado GOP with the Supreme Court, here's what I said.
First, the president is not an officer of the United States under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The text of the Constitution confirms that the president is not an officer of the United States, and the oath the president takes is distinct from the oath officers of the United States take.
Uh further confirming he is not an officer of the United States under Section Three.
Then we went into it is not self-executing, and the states have no authority to bring these kind of cases.
Then we raised the First Amendment issue, and also it only applies to holding office, not running for office.
So I think the Office of the United States is where this is going.
Yeah, I I I tend to agree with you regardless of how the questioning and I think listening to Supreme Court arguments, my past experience has shown me don't think you can guess where anyone justice is going to go based on his or her questioning in the case.
One of the other big issues came up and it was the issue of insurrection.
I wanted to get your take on some of the exchanges regarding that.
The the last I checked uh Jay Seculo, I don't think that Donald Trump was ever charged with insurrection, uh let alone be convicted of insurrection.
Uh and and how does a court get to determine that you know what what are the standards that they're going to use for that?
And secondly, how does a in Maine where you have a you know one elected official court that that took that fate.
They're not going to say there was no insurrection or there was an insurrection.
I'm going to say it doesn't matter.
Okay, and tell me why.
Because the the fundamental question you have in this case is does this statute does the 14th Amendment section three apply to the president of the United States or a former president of the United States and the answer on the face of the amendment is it does not.
So it's almost a jurisdictional question.
You had Justice Brown.
You had Justice Jackson.
You had Justice Kagan.
A little bit from Sotomayor, not that much.
But you had two, you know, two judges that clearly, you know, that are left of center, Democrat appointees.
Two of them that were unequivocal.
And I think this is, you know, I think this is a big part of this.
If you've got Kagan and then you have Justice Jackson arguing that the president's not an officer, officer and pushing the Trump law saying why are you running away from that argument because boy the text of it really seems to support you I think that should bodes well for us at the end of the day.
I think it bodes well as well.
What what did you think?
I mean I've listened to other arguments before the Supreme Court did not televised but you can get the audio feed of it.
And I I felt this was had a little bit different feel and as much as I felt like the judges had come in with their predetermined outcome in many ways and and were trying in both cases to challenge the arguments that both sides put out here.
Did you get that feeling?
Well they did I think look at a case like this where the stakes are so high and what's at play is so real.
I mean it's affects everybody's right to vote.
I mean it's a fundamental issue here.
That what you have is a lot of it is predetermined.
And I don't mean that in a bad way but it a lot of it is determined on the briefs.
I mean the arguments that were being raised by the justices track my brief very closely I'm not saying that to brag or boast.
It just it did.
Because we laid out what I you know me Sean I I like having an exit ramp.
Where can I get nine justices to kind of coalesce?
And I think the officer issue was the issue and it it seemed like that's where they were moving.
Well it seems like it and by the way I'm sure they read your brief as part of their preparation the one thing you you have to give them credit for is they all came in very prepared and they they were you know knowledgeable about past precedent.
They were knowledgeable uh as it relates to the law, the Constitution I I I felt everybody on all sides to me it was just interesting.
That's my biggest takeaway from it.
Um I I think it's a no-brainer but but let me ask you in principle how how does a court get to decide that somebody is guilty of insurrection like the Colorado Supreme Court how do they get to make that determination if an individual's not even been charged with it.
You know I thought we had the idea and the presumption of innocence before proven guilty.
Are you ostensibly proving somebody or or declaring somebody guilty sort of like the main Secretary of state doing it unilaterally.
Yeah Kagan said that I mean Kagan said how are you going to let one state determine all this for the rest of the country and based on what procedures and precedent Justice Jackson wrote this.
She said, you know, I'm not making a distinction between ballot access and anything else.
I mean she was trying to talk you know fundamentally about the case and then she said but the president is not enumerated in section three.
So why would it go to him?
So they they were avoiding the insurrection discussion.
That will not be the basis of any opinion here.
They're not going to find that Donald Trump engaged in insurrection or did not engage in an insurrection.
It's going to be a question of law and not fact.
Let's go to Elena Kagan and play the exchange you're referring to here, asking the Colorado lawyer, Jason Murray.
President of the United States.
In other words, you know, this question of whether a former president is disqualified for insurrection to be president again is, you know, Just it sounds awfully national to me.
so whatever means there are to enforce it would suggest that they have to be federal national means.
Why does uh you know, if you weren't from Colorado and you were from Wisconsin or you were from Michigan, and it really, you know, what the Michigan Secretary of State did is going to make the difference between you know whether candidate A is elected or candidate B is elected, I mean that seems quite extraordinary, doesn't it?
No, Your Honor, because ultimately it's this court that's going to decide that question of federal constitutional eligibility and settle the issue for the nation.
And certainly it's not unusual that questions of national importance come up.
Well, I suppose this court would be saying something along the lines of that a state has the power to do it.
But I guess I was I was asking you to go a little bit further and saying why should that be the right rule?
Why should a single state have the ability to make this determination, not only for their listen, I played on our broadcast today, mostly Kagan and Jackson.
So I'm very optimistic on this.
Uh I think the briefs that we set forth gave them a roadmap, and I think we're gonna have a I'm really optimistic.
I think we get a decision probably in two weeks.
Yeah, why do you think it's gonna happen that quickly?
Try to get it done before March 5th, Super Tuesday.
Oh.
Let's then go, we have to, I guess, go back to the issue of of presidential immunity, which is, you know, I guess that's probably gonna be headed to the Supreme Court should they choose to take it.
Yeah.
Um all right, so when will we find out?
Uh well, they're gonna take it up there Monday, so you'll they'll either get a stay or won't get a stay real quick within days.
So we will know within days whether or not the issue of presidential immunity.
Now, uh in listening to some of those arguments, I was a l I I didn't particularly like the argument that can a president, while president authorize uh SEAL team six uh uh team to assassinate his top political rival.
I I I could I for the life of me could not understand that analogy.
It's a qualified yes.
Qualified yes being you'd have to go through this process.
Here's the answer to this.
If a president of the United States, I'm not talking about any particular president, were to get a weapon and go on Fifth Avenue just start randomly shooting.
Do we think the police can't stop it?
Of course the police can stop it.
They have an obligation to stop it.
Of course.
It's called keeping the peace, which is what law enforcement does, whether you're the president of the United States or whether you're working the subway station for you know the city of New York.
Keeping the peace.
All right, quick break, right back.
We'll continue more with Jay Sekulo, Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice as we continue.
We continue now with Jay Sekulo, he is the Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice.
Here's what I think is the problem with some of these cases, with some of the ways these lawyers are doing it.
You know, Sean, you and I both like sports.
Sometimes you just need to put a layup in the basket.
You just need two points.
But they still go for the three-point shot and then they miss the rim and it bounces out.
So here's the this case, the one involving the issue of immunity.
The fundamental error, and there were many in that DC Court of Appeals' opinion, but the biggest one was that immunity expires at twelve oh one on January twentieth, the moment the former pre the president becomes the former president, or as they said citizen Trump.
I would go to the Supreme Court and say, look, before you decide anything, correct this.
You're looking at time here.
That is fundamentally incorrect.
Immunity protects the president when they're out of office, or else they'll be thinking about lawyers every decision they make.
So I think that that that that is a very that's a reality of that job.
Right.
Here's the point.
Now we gotta determine were these in the scope of his official duties.
And as Alan Dershowitz said on your television broadcast two nights ago, clearly some of them are within his official duties, others may be on the fringes of it, and some may be out.
But a court needs to make a determination as to each one of those.
Then the ones that are not within the official duties and there's no immunity, then a determination has to be made.
Are those incidents constitute a crime?
Now this is gonna take a year when you gotta remand it back.
That's how Jay Secular would argue the case.
I would not go for the three-point shot there.
You want to get through the election without a trial.
And do you think that's still possible?
I mean, you need the Supreme Court to take it up, but I guess at this point, no?
Or do you go to the appeals court and ask for the entire court's decision, which is probably not going to be favorable?
Address this issue first.
Does immunity expire at 1201?
And I think nine justices, just like in this case, would say no, it doesn't.
Now go back to the I sew and I did this with the President Trump's tax returns.
We fought the DA, we fought the DA.
You know, they came out with this, you know, I call muddled ruling.
But the one thing they said in the last it was what Brett Kavanaugh wrote in his concurrence.
Nine justices unanimously agree that President Trump can go back into the district court and file objections on constitutional grounds.
Because before that, I didn't know they didn't know if we could do that.
They the argument was it had to stay in the state courts.
We were in federal court.
So you know what I did?
Filed constitutional objections on federal grounds.
Took another year, and then you know, the eventually the tax returns were delivered.
And how much have you heard about his tax returns?
Not much because I think he paid all those taxes.
Pay a lot there was a bad moment on MSDNC.
I've got the tax return.
I got the tax return.
Oh, Donald Trump paid a lot of money in taxes.
That was a pretty great moment for NBC News, right?
Anyways, it was the principal of things.
So I just think you got to think incrementally in some of these cases.
And not everything is not a three-point shot at the buzzard.
Sometimes you're going into the halftime and you're three points down, and you know what?
I'd like to go in tied.
So I could go on the fourth down with four to go.
And although the percentages say 58% of the time, I'm going to get that first down, but you know, 42% of the time I'm not.
But I'm 32 yards away.
And my guy can kick a field goal at 52 yards.
I'm going to go for the field goal.
But go into the go into the halftime even.
I think his lawyers need to be thinking a little bit more like that.
Well, as we head into Super Bowl Sunday uh weekend, I think that's the uh apropos uh analogy.
Uh Jay Seculow, Chief Counsel, American Center for Law and Justice.
Thank you for being with us, sir.
We appreciate it.
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.
All right, 25 to the top of the hour.
Big breaking news day, the U.S. Superior Supreme Court hearing arguments about the uh the issue of kicking Trump off the ballot issue, uh, that's the Colorado case.
Uh remember the first, the lower court in Colorado, they had determined, as we were talking about with Jay Seculo, they were they were very clear in their determination that it did not apply the term officer to the president, and it was interesting to watch the Supreme Court justices bring that up and actually insinuate that the Trump lawyers were saying, well, what basically saying, why are you giving up on that argument so easily, kind of telling them that's where our heads at?
That was pretty interesting.
So we have all that, but I will tell you the bombshell is this report by the special counsel, Robert Herr.
Um as this may be the end of Joe Biden.
And you're saying, Hannity, how could that possibly be?
I am telling you for this special prosecutor be to be saying the things he's saying about Joe Biden's cognitive state is so devastating.
Um maybe it was easy for them to dismiss me.
Maybe the fact that I've been hammering this point uh unrelent I've been unrelenting in hammering this point from the very beginning.
Clearly I'm in the White House's head.
I mean, Corine Jean-Pierre trying to justify Biden saying that all right, I turn to Francois Mitterrand.
Well, Francois Mitterron's been dead for twenty-seven years, Joe.
Uh, and well, I turned to Helm McCole.
No, he's he's dead, he was dead too at the time that you of the meeting that you're talking about.
That would have been Angela Merkel.
And then, of course, not being able to remember Hamas.
Now, what I've been showing you, what we've been playing here, you know, I started out doing it in a in a kind of more fun way until it really dawned on me that this is not a joke that the president of our country is so cognitively impaired and so physically weak and so physically frail, because that's what we're dealing with.
And if I'm if I'm correct in my analysis, based on Robert Hurr's own comments here, putting aside the issue of we don't have an equal justice system, the or equal application of our laws, and I'm not putting that aside lightly.
But for him to be saying the the things that he's saying in this report, it is just maybe more devastating than even bringing charges against them.
Now we do have a problem with a two-tier justice system.
Hillary Clinton, of course, yes, you had this many classified top secret documents that we found, but no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute and we're just going to forget the whole issue of the 33,000 deleted emails, which I'm sure was done accidentally when you applied bleach bit to the servers and when you beat up your devices and destroyed them with hammers and when when you when you remove SIM cards.
But pay very close attention to what the special counsel here we'll get your reaction to it as well 800 nine four one Sean, but he concludes no criminal charges are warranted, just like Comey.
No reasonable prosecutor would prosecute well you mean a Democrat because if they applied the standards that they applied to Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden to Donald Trump, Mar a Lago never would have been rated and the justification her gives is weak, you know, on a level that is it's not even plausible.
But this is what he says Biden, you know, concluding no criminal charges warranted, he said Biden would very likely present himself to a jury as a sympathetic, well meaning elderly man with a poor memory we conclude that no criminal charges are warranted in this manner.
We would reach the same conclusion even if the Department of Justice policy did not foreclose criminal charges against the sitting president.
Now he goes on in his report to say that Biden willfully willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen.
And then he goes on to explain these materials included Mark classified documents about foreign policy in Afghanistan, notebooks containing Mr Biden's handwritten entries about the issues of national security and foreign policy implicating sensitive intelligence sources and methods FBI agents recovered these materials in the garage offices in the basement den of Biden's Delaware home Biden retained materials documenting his opposition to the troop surge it goes on to explain them all.
Well what is the difference now if you listen to Robert Herr appointed by the very abusively biased and one sided and politicized and weaponized Department of Justice of Joe Biden led by Merrick Garland and this guy appointed by Merrickarland,
you realize well this justification just will make no sense he said well most notably after be give being given multiple chances to return his classified documents and avoid prosecution Mr Trump allegedly did the opposite why are you putting in allegations if you don't know because we do know certain things.
We know the FBI actually went to Mar a Lago, saw the classified documents the room, the main room that they talked about, and did nothing about it except call back you know a couple of days later and ask for an additional lock to be put on the door which was complied with they could have taken those documents with them and her rights according to the indictment not only refused to return the documents for many months well Joe was so cooperative.
He meanwhile he had materials going back to when he was a senator really that's cooperative?
Or did the Justice Department as reports had come out at the time did they tip off Joe Biden as it relates to you know his his entire you know issue being investigated and gave him time to go through documents what they did with them, I don't know.
They didn't find them all because they still went in and found documents but that the you know they're claiming that that Donald Trump obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then lie about it.
Would that be like Hillary Clinton employing others or enlisting others to destroy phones and blackberries with hammers and remove SIM cards and who applied the bleach bit to the servers was it Hillary herself or was it other people?
In contrast, Biden turned in classified documents to the National Archives and Department of Justice, consented to the search of multiple locations.
Well, so did Trump.
That's what's obscene here.
He sat for a voluntary interview and in other ways cooperated with the investigation.
I don't even know if Trump was given the opportunity to sit down with this.
Um, the idea that he would likely present himself to a jury as he did during our interview of him as sympathetic, well meaning, an elderly man with a poor memory.
How would you like to be have the president of your country being described this way in an election year or have him as your candidate?
Can you imagine the ads that could be built around the descriptions of the special counsel?
Let me go a little deeper into the report here.
You know, in his interview with our office, Mr. Biden's memory was worse.
He did not remember when he was vice president, forgetting on the first day of the interview when his term ended.
If it was 2013, when the when did I stop being vice president?
He's asking the special counsel in this interview.
And then forgetting on the second day of the interview when when his term began in 2009.
Am I still vice president?
He doesn't know.
He doesn't remember.
Even within several years when his son Bo died.
He didn't even have I guess that's why he keeps repeating the false story that he died in Iraq.
And among other things, he mistakenly said he had a real difference of opinion with General Carl Eichenberry, when in fact Eigenberry was an ally of Mr. Biden, uh, cited approvingly in his Thanksgiving memo to President Obama.
He didn't remember when he was vice president, didn't remember when he became vice president, didn't remember anything.
Wow.
That's a reason not to prosecute him.
The best case for charges would rely on Biden's possession of Afghanistan documents in his Virginia home on February 2017 when he was a private citizen and he told his ghostwriter that he had just found classified material.
How is that any different than the what they're claiming Donald Trump did?
We conclude that the evidence is not sufficient to convict, and we declined to recommend prosecution for Mr. Biden for his retention of classified documents.
His report, the report points out evidence suggests that Mr. Biden knew he could not keep classified handwritten notes at home after leaving office.
He had for decades of experience with classified information.
He was deeply familiar with measures taken to safeguard classified information and the need for those measures to prevent harm to national security.
And then the report points out that when Biden was asked about reports that former President Trump that kept classified documents at his own home, Biden asked anyone, you know, okay, how can how could anyone be that irresponsible?
The report states that while he was vice president, he kept notebooks in a White House safe for a time in contrast with his decision after leaving office, keeping them at home in unlocked, you know, cabinets, draws.
And Biden also knew that his staff decided to store note cards containing his classified notes in a secured compartmented information facility.
Well, that's the report.
And if he can't remember that when he was pres vice president, if he can't remember when the year that he left office as vice president, if he can't remember the year he became vice president, how in God's name does this man become president of the United States?
How do you justify voting for him?
What is the justification at this point?
I mean, I I it's as devastating as anything I've ever seen.
There are some really good um sweet baby James is, I guess, surfing the net.
You know, his by his his memory was sufficiently uh significantly limited both during recorded interviews with the ghostwriter in twenty seventeen and in his interview with our office in 2023.
You know, and because of all this, Robert Herr, you know, now reporting investigators concluding that it would be he'd be well into his eighties, a serious felony that requires a mental state of willingness.
Well, that that contradicts what I just said to you, what they said.
You know, they that in fact he willfully retained them and disclosed them.
Although maybe they're contradicting that too.
Not really sure.
I don't know.
This is this is just devastating.
And watch every every single Democrat defend this.
Newt Gingrich tweeted out he'll join us at the top of the hour.
He would likely simply present himself this way.
Sympathetic, well meaning.
How would you like to have that as your candidate for president in 2024?
Maybe in the end, maybe this is more devastating.
I don't know.
But it may also mean that Democrats, those that have been critical, like Van Jones, who said he needs to hide and let others do the talking for him, or people like David Axelrod, or you know, people like Maureen Dowd.
Um, James Carville.
These are not lightweights in democratic circles.
Anyway, 800, 941 Sean, if you want to be a part of the uh program.
Uh let's say hi to Trina, I guess, is in Wisconsin.
Hey, Trina, how are you?
Glad you called.
Hi there.
Um, you're the expert, so I'm calling you a first time caller.
I want to know what happens to if Joe Biden earns enough delegates to since the nomination for president, and at the last minute he backs out and is replaced.
How does that person get to be the nomination if they haven't earned the delegates?
Or what happens to them?
Well, at any point, I mean, he could just say that he's not gonna uh he's not gonna run, he can you know, call an audible uh Lyndon B. Johnson move and say um he won't, you know, if nominated, he's not gonna accept, he's not gonna take the nomination at that point.
Um my understanding is that the delegates would then probably in a s uh some smoke-filled room, uh, be working the phones and trying to find the best candidate they can find.
I assume they probably the first call would be to Michelle Obama, like others have been speculating.
I don't I don't think it I don't think anybody really wants Kamala Harris or approval rating as of MBC's recent poll was 28%.
How do you put her in there?
She's doing worse than him.
You know, Gavinuson's name comes up again, and you got Gretchen Whitmer and people like her.
I'm sure her name will be bannered about.
Okay, so they just automatically pass them on.
It's it's not a big deal.
I would I would say that is what they plan to do.
Yeah.
Uh that that if it's going to happen, it either happens sooner or it's going to happen then, or it doesn't happen.
I mean, those are the three options, which I'm stating the obvious.
Uh, real quickly, anyway, thank you for the call.
Uh, Nick is in Long Island, New York.
What's up, Nick?
How are you?
Very well.
Well, uh, by the way, you have a you have in District Three in Long Island.
Uh well, I'm just telling you, uh you have Mazzy Um, what's her name?
Uh Pillip is running against Tom Swazi, and that's a winnable seat.
So Republicans, early voting, I think goes on until Friday, then the real elections on Tuesday.
But anyway, what's on your mind?
It's actually it's actually in my district.
Uh, I didn't call about that.
I called about this trying to take uh President Trump off the ballot.
Uh I'm independent, so I don't have loyalty to Trump or Biden, and I don't think you should be able to take either one of them off the ballot.
And I have two words that I think every lawyer should say to any court you know, it's Gus Hall.
My first presidential election was Ronald Reagan against you.
Wasn't he the communist guy?
Exactly.
My point.
So if a communist guy can run while we're still in a cold war, who are we to say that Donald Trump or Joe Biden or any other American can't run?
Uh the states don't have the right.
I mean, the the more interesting point, Jonathan Turley made this, was that it was the more liberal justices that were harder on the arguments being made against Trump than probably anybody.
I look, I still think it's nine-zero.
We'll see.
Uh anyway, when we come back, we'll get Newt's take on all these issues today.
Obviously, this beatdown by the special counsel her about Joe's cognitive state.
More on the oral arguments in the Supreme Court today.
Hey, I want to remind you that we all know the atrocities what happened to Israel uh on October 7th when they were attacked, the worst terror attack in their history by Hamas.
Well, the toll on the people of Israel has been staggering.
It's been massive.
Hundreds of thousands of Israelis forced out of their homes, entire communities torn apart.
The international Fellowship of Christians and Jews.
They have been right in the middle of this every single day, distributing critical essentials like food, medicine, emergency supplies for hundreds of thousands of suffering Israelis.
They need your help desperately.
Whatever you can give will be matched today.
So if you gave 25 bucks, it'd be like giving 50 bucks.
You give 50, it's like 100.
It's support IFCJ.com.
That's all one word.
Support IFCJ.org.
And whatever help you can provide is so desperately needed.
All right, when we come back, we have a lot of news that's breaking.
Robert Hurz report that basically says Joe Biden is not cognitively fit to be a Walmart or Target greeter, like I've been telling you.
And also the arguments before the Supreme Court over whether states can kick Trump off the ballot.
New Kingrich is next and your calls.
▲
Export Selection