All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 9, 2024 - Sean Hannity Show
31:21
US Liable? - February 8th, Hour 3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is an iHeart Podcast.
I hear from people in our caucus who talk to sources high up and say, we need to make sure Sean Hannity's not talking about this to Laura Ingraham because conservatives, that's why they kept it secret.
Every day between now and November, the American people are going to know that the only reason the border is not secure is Donald Trump and his Maggie Republican friends.
No, no, 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.
The clock is ticking.
Only 270 days left till the presidential election.
From sea to shining sea.
Sean Kennedy is on.
Stay right here for our final news roundup and information overload.
All right.
Thanks, Scott Shannon, and welcome to our news roundup information overload hour.
A lot of news today.
Supreme Court hearing arguments on the case of whether Donald Trump can be kicked off the ballot in this case in Colorado.
Very interesting.
Every indication that it's going to be a 9-0 decision in favor of Trump.
And then the big bombshell of the day is the special counsel, Robert Hurr, coming out with his report about Joe Biden and top secret classified documents and concluding that no criminal charges are warranted.
Biden would likely present himself to a jury as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.
And the very first line of the report states, we conclude that no criminal charges are warranted in this matter.
You know, we could reach the same conclusion even if the Department of Justice did not foreclose criminal charges against a sitting president.
And then he states that Biden did, in fact, violate the law by willfully, quote, willfully retaining and disclosing classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen.
And those materials included marked classified documents about foreign policy in Afghanistan, notebooks containing, quote, Mr. Biden's handwritten entries about issues of national security and foreign policy implicating sensitive intelligence sources and methods.
And it goes on and on and on from there.
In other words, he's guilty.
You know, remember you see all these examples of these old mob guys.
You know, they put themselves in a wheelchair.
They dress up in their pajamas.
I mean, is this the message we're now going to send?
Well, if you just come off as a very nice, sympathetic, well-meaning older man with no memory or a poor memory, yeah, there's nobody that's going to want to find you guilty there.
That's a whole new legal standard.
Never mind the whole double standard I've gone into great detail with as it relates to how they treated President Trump and how they treated Hillary Clinton.
If you're a Democrat, you get one system of justice.
If you're a Republican, conservative, forget it.
Here's the best part.
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.
Quote, if it was 2013, when did I stop being vice president?
Question.
And forgetting on the second day of the interview when his term began.
Parentheses, quote, in 2009, am I still vice president?
He didn't remember even within several years when his son Bo died.
And his memory appeared hazy when describing the Afghanistan debate that was once so important to him, and it goes on from there.
Anyway, former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, is with us.
Well, that's a hell of an endorsement by the special counsel.
And one interesting note, and then I'm going to hand the ball to you, is all the pictures that are in this report magically look just like the pictures that were taken at Mar-a-Lago and four separate locations.
But anyway, Mr. Speaker, welcome back.
Great to have you back.
That's a great endorsement for President Joe Biden, don't you think?
Well, listen, I think whatever happens on the criminal side, this is politically devastating.
You know, part of the conclusion on page six is that they couldn't convict him because, quote, the jury would not believe that it was, quote, a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.
That's the exact quote.
You have a commander-in-chief.
You have a commander-in-chief who, after all of this investigation, Robert Herr, as special counsel concludes, literally cannot get his act together enough to be convicted of doing something because nobody will believe that he was responsible.
Now, how would you like that as the guy in charge of defending America?
He doesn't remember when he became vice president, doesn't remember when he left office.
He doesn't remember when his son died.
Now, you're describing somebody, and I said this, as a matter of fact, I said it on TV last night.
I said it yesterday on this program.
He would not qualify to be a Walmart greeter.
You know the Walmart greeter people, when you go in, they're the nicest people in the world.
Welcome to Walmart.
Great to have you.
Anything I can help you with?
Yeah, I'd like the sporting goods department.
Yeah, that's right over there.
They're basically saying in this report, Joe Biden's not qualified for that job, but he's qualified to be president.
Well, that's why I think this is actually a devastating report.
And I agree with those who have said this is sort of the first real signal that the left is going to get rid of him.
Because the language here is so harsh that even though this is very much like the Hillary Clinton deal, where Clinton, it's clear Hillary was guilty of all sorts of stuff, but let's not charge her.
So now you have her coming and go, you know, he's guilty of all of this, but we really shouldn't charge him.
Well, the first thing that led me to believe is, so don't they have an obligation to drop the suit against Donald Trump?
I would think so because it's clearly, you know, this is not equal justice or equal application of our laws now, is it?
No, and in fact, if you'll notice, Biden was, in fact, willfully handling secret documents for years.
So, and as you've pointed out, and as the pictures point out, he had a box full of secret documents in his garage next to the Corvette that his son Hunter was working on.
I mean, you know, it is so sloppy, so unimaginable.
And the notion that, and I think this is where the country is going to really look and put great pressure on the Attorney General.
How does the Attorney General Garland justify going forth against Trump in the Myral Argo case when they are skipping Joe Biden, who Hurr basically says, obviously he did it.
Obviously it's true.
Here are all the facts.
But we don't know.
Obviously, it met the standard of willful.
Right.
Except we now believe he is so incompetent, so sympathetic as a doddering old fool that we don't think we could convict him because the jury would just feel bad about doing something to a guy who clearly had no memory and no capacity for being willful.
Well, if that's anywhere close to correct about the President of the United States, I find that very sobering in terms of our national security and in terms of our whole ability to survive as a country.
I will tell you, I share your concern.
Now, Hurr in this thing actually says things that are just factually inaccurate.
He said, most notably, after given multiple chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution, Mr. Trump allegedly did the opposite.
Now, what he obviously doesn't know is that the FBI was actually at Mar-a-Lago in the very room with the classified documents.
They had an up-close view of everything.
They chose not to do anything except a couple of days later they called and said, would you mind putting an extra lock on the door?
So what Hurr is writing here is not true.
And he just then cites the indictment that according to the indictment, he not only refused to return the documents for many months, but he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then lie about it.
In contrast, Mr. Biden turned in classified documents.
They gave him time and a heads up of when, in fact, they were going to come and look.
They basically colluded with him.
Now, to answer your question about Merrick Garland, I don't think Merrick Garland cares.
That's why Jim Jordan and the House Judiciary Committee is looking into whether our DOJ has been weaponized and politicized and whether the same thing was going on with the FBI.
And I think the obvious answer, just using the Clinton model and the Joe Biden model and then the treatment of Donald Trump, that is unequal justice under the law.
That's a dual justice system.
That's not justice in America.
That's right.
I mean, I think that the country, there should be a huge outcry about this, personally.
I just think that the country has an opportunity here to bring such enormous pressure to bear that it's crazy.
You know, the reality.
Let me play something for you.
I want you to hear Joe Biden this week.
Now, he made, in the last week, two big mistakes.
He's recalled the conversation with Francois Mitterrand, who's dead and has been dead since 1996.
And then he did it again at fundraisers yesterday, talking about conversations with Helmut Kohl, who was the Chancellor of Germany, when in fact it was Angela Merkel that he was talking about.
But he mixed that up.
And then, of course, this great moment when he couldn't remember the terrorist group Hamas responsible for the October 7th attack on Israel.
Listen.
There is some movement, and I don't want to.
I mean, excuse my words.
There's some movement.
There's been a response from the response from the opposition.
But yes, I'm sorry.
from Hamas, but it seems to be a little over the top.
We're not sure where it is.
There's a continuing negotiation right now.
He couldn't recall Hamas refers to them as the opposition.
Is that what we call terrorists now?
But if you listen to that voice, you can see why her thinks no jury would ever convict him.
I mean, he sounds like he is totally out of touch with the planet.
Well, Corrine Jean-Pierre was asked about this today, and she brought me up as an example that somehow I'm comparable because I once mixed up Jason Chaffetz and Matt Gates' name, which I have no recollection of ever, but for whatever reason, let me play her for you.
As it relates to the names and what he was trying to, you know, what he was trying to say, look, many people, elected officials, many people, you know, they can misspeak sometimes, right?
And look, let me give you a couple of examples.
You know, on Sunday, Speaker Johnson said Iran instead of Israel.
This happens.
Joe is not here.
There are many times I call Joe from USA Today, Michael.
I'm sure he doesn't appreciate that.
And also, Sean Hannity himself has said Jason Chavitz when he met Matt Gates.
I mean, it happens.
It really happens.
Sean Hannity himself.
I'm on the air four hours a day, Mr. Speaker.
I first interviewed you in 1990.
Do you think I'm anywhere near where Joe Biden is cognitively?
Well, I have begun to worry about you.
You know, I love you like a brother.
Go ahead.
It was a good, clean, cheap shot, and I couldn't help myself.
Fair game.
I get it.
No, no.
Look, but what she doesn't quite get is it doesn't matter.
You are a radio, TV, talk show host.
You don't have nuclear weapons.
You don't have the button.
You don't have a guy walking around with a big bag in case the war starts.
I mean, we're talking about the president of the United States.
We're not talking about.
By the way, I think those things would be in safer hands with me if you want me to be blunt.
Well, they would be.
If we're measuring cognitive ability, there are probably 100 million Americans that have.
Probably more, probably 200.
Look, and I tweeted today that you're presently going to see a commercial that takes exactly Robert Herr's language and just has example after example after example.
And this very simple question.
Do you really want to trust this guy with America's future for the next four years?
And I think it will be devastating.
And I am beginning to believe that he will not be the nominee because I just think this is beginning to move into a zone where, I mean, he's in la-la land.
All right.
Who replaces him?
Exit question.
Who replaces him?
Michelle is the most likely if she'll do it.
I think other than that, Newsom is probably the second most likely.
And then I think you go down to the governors of Michigan and Pennsylvania.
I mean, they'll find somebody.
There are lots of ambitious people in the world.
And how do they leapfrog over Vice President Harris?
That's where Michelle has the great advantage.
She is the one person who the black community could not complain about if she were to replace, you know.
I can't see her wanting to do it, but, you know, if they do this at the convention in, what is it, August, I would imagine that's when it would happen.
And she might look at it, well, I only have to campaign a few months.
I'll limit my appearances, and I won't debate Donald Trump, and I'll just, you know, coast the victory.
Is that going to be her plan?
I don't know.
I mean, I think he's decaying at a rate, and today's report dramatically accelerates it.
Where I could imagine sometime this spring he announces he's not going to run and that, you know, you end up with Michelle being the most likely person drafted.
Drafted by the superdelegates or the delegates to the DNC, that'll probably be coordinating altogether.
That's my guess.
You know the way it works, by the delegates, by the activists, by the members of Congress, and there's a Suddenly We Love Michelle club.
But I didn't really believe this, but I have a good friend who is very well connected, who has been telling me for three months that billionaires are meeting with Michelle and Barack and talking about this race.
I'm sure that's true.
All right, Mr. Speaker, thank you.
We appreciate it.
All right, to our busy phones.
Aaron in the state of Colorado.
Well, you guys have not been in the news much today.
By the way, we're still following this issue of the special counsel her now the documents and his report have been released to Congress.
We're getting more details as that comes in.
Anyway, sorry about that.
Aaron, welcome to the program.
Yes, John.
My question is, after this Supreme Court hearing, it will be a better understanding of what insurrection is and how it's defined.
So if Trump wins and they say something along the lines of that he did not participate or in sight, how will that affect the citizens that have been convicted of insurrection?
Well, you raise an interesting legal question, but my analysis is pretty similar to Jay Seculo's, except the only difference is I wasn't involved in 23 Supreme Court cases and arguing 17 of them like he has.
And I think he's very smart in pointing out you just go for the one narrow answer.
Hitting a single is a win here.
And at the end of the day, if the statutory language and the constitutional language does not refer to the president, which is what the original lower court ruling was in Colorado before the Colorado Supreme Court jumped in, that's a pretty compelling argument.
And right there, he's saying, case over.
The issue of insurrection, I kind of agree with him.
I don't think it's even going to come up.
Well, if somebody's convicted of insurrection and insurrection did not happen, is that not false imprisonment?
Based on what you're telling me, based on that set of circumstances, it would be.
Now, I don't know what the charges were in a lot of these cases.
I do know this.
I know President Trump has never been charged with insurrection.
He's never, never mind, let alone be convicted of insurrection.
And the idea that a number of members of a state Supreme Court think that they can unilaterally make that decision or a Secretary of State of Maine thinks they can make that decision unilaterally is a joke.
I don't see this case in any way moving forward other than a 9-0, maybe 8-1, I don't know, 7-2.
I just can't see any other decision.
And I don't know.
I don't like to glean from what justices say or the questions they ask or the things, but it was kind of clear that I think they're very hell-bent on this point, that the president's officers, remember, he takes a very different oath than the officers of the United States.
It doesn't mention the president.
There are other means of dealing with the president, constitutionally speaking.
So I just think at this point, I think it's over.
I don't think they're going to get even close in that case.
Well, all the newspapers and them are having cringe moments right now.
Yeah, I mean, they're upset because even the New York Times is acknowledging it looks like that the president's team is going to win this and they're going to win this handily.
Anyway, I appreciate you checking in.
800-941, Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
Let's see.
If the Supreme Court ends up agreeing with the D.C. Appello Court, this is on the immunity issue, which they decided on Tuesday against the president's immunity claim.
I wonder if Trump is right.
Would that expose potentially or open up potential exposure to past living presidents like Obama Bush, for example?
I mean, it's an interesting question.
Justthenews.com talked to former Georgia GOP Georgia Congressman Doug Collins.
He warned that the recent immunity ruling against the president could, in fact, have implications on past presidents that are alive.
And there are just things that need to be held accountable, he said.
And by that ruling, they're basically opening up the door that they could, for example, prosecute Obama, the drone strikes, which killed Americans, or George Bush's policy of detainees and Gitmo and all that garbage that we litigated to death at the time.
But even the most liberal justices were skeptical of the Democratic Trump ballot ban, which is the separate issue.
Anyway, back to our phones.
Let's say hi to Jason is in Louisiana.
Jason, hi, how are you?
Glad you called.
Hey, Sean, nice to talk to you, bud.
Been watching and listening to you for a long time.
Thank you, my friend.
What's going on?
I would like to comment on the Mayorkas hearing.
I think, in my opinion, it was nothing but a dog and pony show.
2.15 to 215 with an undecided, it just reeks of, well, we tried.
Look, we tried to do something, you know.
And it just, in my opinion, I think Mayorkas was guaranteed or promised immunity from what he's doing now.
Well, he laid it out in writing.
Sarah Carter broke this story on the show yesterday.
He laid out in writing in 2021 exactly what their manifesto was going to be and how they would, quote, use the word discretion to maximize their lawlessness and their assisting, they're aiding, they're abetting in the lawlessness and their contributing factors and everything that now has resulted in a disaster for the country.
This is the biggest national security breach we will find out over time in the history of this country.
And then we'll scratch our heads.
How did we let this happen?
And the answer is, is because Joe Biden, Alejandro Mayorkis, Kamala Harris, and all of their minions doing their bidding were out there.
And lo and behold, here we are.
They were out there facilitating this the entire time, lying to us about it the entire time.
And now they're taking on a totally different posture, which is, well, Congress needs to do something.
And even they admitted today that Joe has the power to do things through executive order.
So, you know, these are really weird times we're living in.
Let's put it that way.
Well, I don't think that Joe Biden's doing this all on his own either.
I think he's being guided because honestly, this whole administration reminds me of that old movie Weekend at Bernie's.
Yeah, he does have that little weekend at Bernie's look about him, doesn't he?
Yes.
But anyway, thank you, Sean.
Thank you for taking my call.
Have a good day.
All right, man.
You have a good day.
Appreciate the call.
800-941-Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
All right, Jason in North Carolina.
Jason, how are you?
Glad you called, my friend.
Happy to be with you, Sean.
Glad to hear from you.
You're a great American, and I appreciate you.
You're a great American, and I will tell you, one of the most beautiful sites in the world are the mountains in North Carolina.
Nice place.
It is a very nice place.
I moved out of New York as well to come down here to get away from that nonsense.
But today, I just wanted to comment on something you had about Bud Light.
Yeah, our discussion we had yesterday.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So you were asking us, hey, you know, maybe it's time we go back.
You know, we know they kind of ticked you off.
It was an oopsie.
You know, let's think about the workers that we're affecting.
Hey, by the way, I never said it's an oopsie.
I never said anything of the kind.
What are you making this up?
I'm not polite about it.
I'm trying to be polite about it.
I didn't say you made an oopsie.
Go ahead.
You're cracking me up.
But so you get, so you were drawing on our heartstrings about supporting fellow Americans and they're out of work because of us taking our dollar and moving it away from a company that doesn't believe in what we believe in.
And so I thought about it.
I said, I understand what he's saying, and I get it.
But then every day I hear a commercial that you support, that you endorse, and you actually say, and this is for Pure Talk, and you say, you know, basically, I'm going to summarize it.
You don't only remember, but you vote with the money that you spend, spend your money with a company that supports your beliefs.
Yeah, and shares your values.
I have said that.
Yeah, I agree.
Here's the counter argument.
You're forgetting a big part of this equation.
And context and texture and history matter.
What has their past history been?
Number one, they employ 65,000 people.
Those are a lot of high-paying career jobs because it's such a profitable company.
Number two, you know, what about they're an original supporter of Folds of Honor?
What about the $30 million that they've given to veterans causes that we know of?
That's what Donald Trump put in his truth social post when he said that.
That's context.
That's texture.
That kind of mitigates the idea that, okay, this company is as woke as people are claiming.
Dana White, I don't think you would say is anything but a strong, solid Trump-supporting conservative.
He's not shy about anything, and he partnered with them with the UFC.
But my argument, you know, you seem to be minimizing what I'm saying here.
I don't really give a, I don't give a rat's ass about Anheuser-Busch, to be honest with you.
But I'm glad they've done all these other noble things because I think it warrants at least a look at a second chance.
So I like that part of it.
From the day one, I knew that this, if the boycott was successful, and it was immediately, I knew what the outcome would be.
And that is rank and file people that had nothing to do with this marketing department, they're going to end up paying the ultimate price.
And yeah, I care a lot about the thousands that lost their jobs that have significantly reduced incomes.
I don't care about Anheuser-Busch management.
They don't mean nothing to me.
They're not an advertiser on this show.
And I just think I care more about them than I do about hating the parent company that is clearly making efforts now to mitigate what they did here.
My actual point is: so you're saying, okay, let's go ahead and support what they've done for us.
Let's look at the good and the people they employ.
But yet, like I said, with the Pure Talk.
I'm saying, look at the whole big pic.
Look at the whole picture.
Don't look at a little snippet.
And I get that.
And what I'm saying is, but you're asking us to pull our dollar from other carriers and the people they support and the Americans that work for them take out our dollar and move to Pure Talk and support them because they believe in what we believe in.
We should take our dollar to a company that supports our beliefs.
I'm also telling you that for the same exact coverage, 5G network and the same cell towers, you pay about half.
So I'm also telling you to do it for practical financial reasons, and you should dial pound 250 and say the keyword save now if you've not done it.
So, no, look, I'm sorry if my mind goes towards, you know who they go towards, they go towards a younger Sean Hannity.
They go towards guys like me.
A guy, you might look at me now and say, oh, Hannity, you got a TV and a radio show, and you're paid a lot of money.
And that's all true.
I never expected any of it.
I always thought, well, since I started in radio that I was about to get fired and I'm doing my last show.
But here I am all these years later and I'm very grateful to all of you for giving me this microphone.
But the old Sean Hannity, if he lost a high-paying career job at a mortgage payment or rent payments and car payments and insurance payments and college tuition and somehow try and save a little bit for retirement, I'm thinking about that guy.
I'm thinking about that woman.
That's where my mind goes.
And if you think that's hypocritical, I'll take the criticism.
That's fair.
But my last question is, okay, we want to keep our guys still employed.
So how do we keep companies accountable for when they don't do what, you know, when they go right against their...
Listen, if they screw up again, nobody's going to be able to help them.
Dana White can't help them.
Sean Hannity can't help them.
Donald Trump can't help them.
At that point, however, I do know that their Super Bowl ad is not going to be covering Dylan Mulvaney.
I do know that they did partner with Dana White at the UFC.
Dana White, kind of known for his strong opinion, salty language, and his fierce defense of freedom of speech.
So, you know, I don't think these are insignificant people.
Dana White didn't need Bud Light.
He told me straight up that he had other people that wanted to be his beer sponsor.
But he said after he talked to the company and looked at their whole story, it convinced them that, you know what, it's time to move on.
And I would only say the only reason I would want people that like Bud Light, liked it before, to think about it.
And I'm not telling anybody what to do.
I don't tell people what to do, is because I care about those people that risk losing their jobs and those that lost their job and hopefully can be rehired.
So you're saying give them a second chance for the working folks.
But you feel that.
They go ahead and they do that.
But I also think partnering with Dana was a big mayoculpa for them.
They're basically saying we now know who our customer base is.
That's what they're saying with that decision, don't you think?
Well, I do hope that really, truly is what it is, and it's not just a money move.
I mean, yes, they're there to make money.
And they have, unfortunately, they've come out with really sad apologies and bad.
No, they've been awful.
I totally agree with you.
Listen, if you feel, if it's in your heart, you feel like you're doing the wrong thing, I'm not going to try and talk you out of that.
I just, to me, I used to be that guy.
That's who I was.
And I relate to it.
And I live paycheck to paycheck.
It sucks.
And I just don't want to see these people hurt.
I understand.
All right.
Well, listen, I'm just telling you, if it's you, you're going to want your high-paying career job back.
But I got a role.
You've been a very interesting caller, Jason.
I appreciate you checking in.
Glad you're out there.
All right, coming up, Hannity, 9 Eastern, we'll have the Supreme Court, the back and forth over the issue of whether or not states can kick Donald Trump off the ballot.
Didn't go well for the Liberals.
Also, the Robert Hurr report is out.
And if it is devastating in one way, it just chronicles how bad Joe Biden's cognitive decline is.
We'll have all of that.
▲
Export Selection