All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 23, 2024 - Sean Hannity Show
32:29
Gregg Jarrett - February 22nd, Hour 2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is an iHeart Podcast.
We're coming, city.
A crooked New York State judge just ruled that I have to pay a fine of $355 million for having built the perfect company.
You need to listen to him and take him seriously.
He is telling us what he wants to do.
He wants to be a dictator on day one.
It's about time they step up, don't you think?
Instead of going on a two-week vacation, two weeks.
They're walking away.
Two weeks.
What are they thinking?
The clock is ticking.
Only 256 days left till the presidential election.
Yeah, we are coming to your city.
Gonna play our guitars and sing you a conscious song.
From coast to coast.
From border to border.
From sea to shining sea.
Sean Hannity is on.
All right, now we're two.
Sean Hannity Show, toll-free.
Our number is 800-941-Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
You know, it's amazing that, you know, watching the media, the mob try and run defense on the Biden family syndicate is actually interesting to watch.
It's a case study of things to watch, as a matter of fact, because there's so much that they get wrong.
There is so much that they don't want to report.
There's so much in terms of offering a defense for all things either Clinton or Biden, basically all things Democrats.
I mean, that's what it really is.
You know, I mean, they're now beginning.
I noticed over a conspiracy theory channel, MSDNC, you know, the people that were responsible for using the dirty Russian disinformation dossier for three long years.
They used it.
And that was a, quote, trusted source.
Hillary Clinton uses a law firm, funnels money to an op research group.
They hired this former MI6 guy by the name of Christopher Steele.
He puts together a series of papers.
They become known as the Russian dossier.
And they were preaching this like this was gospel truth.
And it turned out it was full of lies.
It was a political document.
Bruce Orr warned that it was a political document in August of 2016.
You know, it's insane.
And now they're saying, well, see, the entire case of this informant, Smirnoff, has fallen apart.
And that means that everything involving the Bidens is not true.
It's not been true the whole time.
I love Jonathan Turley's take on this.
Headline in the New York Post today.
No, one liar doesn't clear them.
And it doesn't clear them.
You know, the very same people, a bunch of useful idiots, duped into pushing this three-year-old conspiracy theory.
Hillary's bought and paid for a dossier.
They peddled that for three years.
And Steele, it turns out, like in this case, another trusted FBI informant, this guy Smirnoff, apparently has been working with the FBI since 2010.
And apparently at one point was actually given permission to break the law in the help and investigations they were involved in.
I mean, it's pretty unbelievable.
You know, we were told they're well-trusted, long-time FBI informants, both Steele and Smirnoff.
Well, first of all, how does the FBI vet these guys?
Clearly not well.
Now, that's a separate issue for a separate day.
But if you look at the record, you know, the FBI defended these people for the longest time.
James Comey signed three of the four FISA warrants, and the bulk of that information came from Hillary Clinton's bought and paid for, unverifiable, dirty Russian dossier that the media mob ran with.
And, you know, when you think about it, they were warned not to run with it in August of 2016 by Bruce Orr, of all people.
He said it was political and phony.
Don't trust it.
Then, of course, all our reporting was vindicated by the Horowitz report, the Durham Report, and in fact, you know, backed up that they peddled lies and conspiracy theories.
The FBI, we learned later, they were meeting with big tech every week, you know, in the months leading up to the election.
And meanwhile, the FBI had verified the authenticity of Hunter Biden's laptop in March of 2020.
Wow.
The laptop was very real.
But you wouldn't have known if you were on, you know, social media because they weren't allowed to even link to the story that was put out by the New York Post.
So all of this, I mean, they censored a very real laptop story that even polls have shown could have had a big difference.
And here's the most important part, and then we're going to bring in our friend Greg Jarrett.
And that is none of the arguments about this one person that the DOJ is now telling us this trusted source since 2010.
It doesn't exonerate anybody.
It doesn't negate the fact that Joe Biden lied to the country about contact with his son, brother, and others as it relates to their foreign business deals.
And that starts with Burisma.
You know, why would a vice president leverage a billion dollars, even though it's official Obama administration policies, to get a guy in Ukraine, a prosecutor, fired?
What was the result of that firing?
The result was that his son, that was addicted to crack at the time, admittedly, continued to get paid for being on a board of which he had no knowledge, no background, no experience in a country where he had no knowledge, no background, no experience.
I'm sitting here with my father.
You know, that was the CEFC.
That's the Chinese communist oil conglomerate.
And between everybody he knows and my ability to keep a grudge, you're going to regret not paying the money.
None of it negates the amount of money that they got paid and how they got paid.
Doesn't explain away the LLCs where they don't see any other financial business.
Tens of millions of dollars from hostile regimes, no apparent work that has been identified, no services that we can find rendered.
You would think they'd have an answer for that considering the massive amount of money.
Why would these countries pay a guy addicted to crack and no experience all that money?
Why were grandchildren paid?
Why were 10 Biden family members funneled money?
Why did Joe go against official Obama administration policy at the time?
What about the WhatsApp message?
How damning is that?
You know, why the exact money from a Kazakhstan oligarch for a new Porsche for Hunter?
You know, Joe's big lie, what, that he never talked to them.
And Kevin Archer says he was on the phone 20 separate times, meeting at the Cafe Milano with a Russian oligarch, Elena Batarina, and other meetings apparently took place.
And before he leveraged it, the reported phone call by James Comer and his committee, Hunter in Dubai with the Burisma executives at a time they desperately needed D.C. help, and they get on a phone call with Joe, and then five days later, he fires the prosecutor by leveraging your tax money.
You can't make this up.
I'm just getting started.
But if I keep going, I'm not going to put Greg Jarrett on, who's our friend.
You know, you might have, you know, a new book to come out pretty soon because the media seems to be going with the Russia hoax number two if you watch MSDNC.
Yeah, it's laughable, Sean, that people like Jamie Raskin, even the White House, you know, apologists for Joe Biden are saying, oh, see, the entire investigation should be dismissed.
Hunter's laptop may be Russian disinformation.
No.
I mean, if you read the criminal complaint carefully, you will see that there's no connection whatsoever, Jonathan.
Turley's right.
The court filing dispels the claim that there's a connection between Smirnov and the laptop.
And one of the reasons is because Smirnov's contacts were recent.
They do not precede 2020.
And remember, the laptop was obtained in 2019, and the 51 Intel people lied about it in November of 2020.
So they're completely unconnected.
And it has nothing to do with all of the volumes of evidence on the laptop of influence peddling that's found in text messages and photographs and emails.
So, you know, Smirnoff's arrest and criminal charges against him is simply a sideshow, nothing more than that.
Well, I went through some of the evidence.
I mean, they want to take that one issue.
And Turley, I think, put it very well in his piece.
And that is the issue that, okay, we do have a liar here.
First of all, are you as concerned as I am that the FBI is standing up for the credibility of not one but two informants that have been paid, that have been longtime FBI informants,
that they told the American people were to be trusted, and that two of them end up being huge liars, and they both play such a critical role in impacting presidencies in this country.
That's a problem for me.
What the hell are they doing?
Yeah, I mean, the FBI operates like a high-level three Stooges comedy.
You know, they are forever vouching for the trustworthiness and credibility of lying informants, whether it's Christopher Steele or Igor Danchenko, now Alexander Smirnoff.
So it makes you really wonder what in the world is going on at the FBI.
In the case of Christopher Steele, they knew he was lying.
They knew his dossier was phony.
They, in fact, fired Steele for lying to them, but conveniently, they didn't tell that to the FISA court.
Instead, they covered it up and they presented his dossier as credible and Steele as trustworthy, even though he had been fired.
They used it as a pretext to spy on Donald Trump's campaign and one of his participants in the campaign.
And there's been no remorse.
And Christopher Wright says, oh, don't worry, it'll never happen again because we've instituted new policies and procedures to make sure it doesn't.
Well, it just did with Smirnoff.
All right.
Let me ask you now.
Senator Grassley and Grassley's office says the Smirnov indictment isn't enough.
And it seems that he doesn't quite believe that the FBI is telling the truth when it comes to the claims that the Biden bribery witnessed, the 1023 form, which, by the way, we all know is one person's account of what they said happened.
But it doesn't, as you point out, it doesn't deal with all the other corroborating evidence, nor does it negate what we do know about the case.
Now, this is the same FBI that fabricated evidence to falsely paint Trump campaign aide Carter Page.
Wasn't it insinuated he was a Russian agent of some kind?
And meanwhile, we found out way later that he worked for the CIA?
Yeah, exactly, and the FBI covered that up.
I mean, you'd have to be crazy to believe much of anything that the FBI says these days.
Their track record is abysmal.
And again, I come back to what's on the laptop.
Is there irrefutable proof that Joe Biden committed corrupt acts?
Probably not, but there's compelling evidence that could lead in that direction.
Documents, photographs, texts, emails, testimony, circumstantial and direct, and they all implicate Joe Biden as complicit in his son's activities.
And the IRS whistleblowers said the same thing.
You know, I'm reminded of the lead character Harvey Specter in the hit TV series Suits.
He was known as the closer.
He would just appear at the very end, shake a few hands, and the deal was closed.
That was Joe Biden's role.
Hunter solicited the deal with foreign actors, selling access to his powerful vice president dad, promises of influence.
Joe would suddenly show up at a meeting or a dinner with the benefactors, simply make phone calls to him.
His appearance signified his participation, thus closing the deals.
Joe Biden was the closer.
And millions of dollars would immediately flow into Hunter-controlled bank accounts.
The cash funneled through a complex web of shell companies.
Some of it then distributed to Biden family members.
In other words, Joe was a witting accessory.
He aided and abetted the influence peddling schemes by helping to sell the Biden brand.
And that's what Tony Bobolinski just the other day testified to.
And the same testimony came from Devin Archer, who also corroborated that Joe lied and that when he said he never once spoke to his son, brother, or anybody about their foreign business deals.
Quick break more with Fox News legal analyst, our friend Greg Jarrett, 800-941-Sean, our number, if you want to be a part of the program as we continue.
All right, we continue now with Greg Jarrett.
Then your call's coming up, 800-941-Sean.
It's interesting what Charles Grassley is now doing.
He was the one that publicly released the 1023 form, and he's saying this indictment's not enough.
He said the public has the right to see all the underlying evidence supporting the Biden Justice Department's case.
The Biden administration must show its work.
I actually agree with that.
On top of that, the New York Post is reporting that there is a corroborating witness whose name is Alexander Ostapanko or Panko.
And did the FBI ever check with him?
Because apparently not.
If you look at a word search through the DOJ's 37-page Smirnov indictment, nowhere is the name Alexander Ostapanko mentioned one time.
It wasn't mentioned one time.
I'd like to know what happened with him.
It does make you wonder, by filing the criminal charges against Smirnoff, is the FBI covering up its own misconduct?
You know, again, they vouched for him for years, said he was trusted.
They paid him truckloads of money.
And they hid the 1023 form in Smirnoff's identity until Grassley came up with it.
And then suddenly now they charge Smirnoff.
Well, maybe Smirnoff's telling the truth.
You can't trust the FBI to properly investigate it.
That is amazing.
And then, oopsie-daisy.
Yeah, we signed four Pfizer warrants based on our trusted informant and took away the rights of American citizens in the process.
But oopsie-daisy, nobody gets held accountable.
Right.
You know, and then you can go back to the issue of Paige and Strzok, you know, openly, you know, wanting to go after Peter Strzzok and Lisa Page plotting to destroy Trump and the 2016 campaign.
Oh, we can't, you don't think you'll ever become president, do you?
Oh, well, I'm going to make sure that doesn't happen.
All right, Greg Jarrett, I think you have a best-selling book as this unfolds in the days, weeks, months, and probably years ahead, my friend.
All right.
Thanks, Sean.
Appreciate it, as always.
800-941-Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
All right, 25 to the top of the hour.
We'll get to your calls here in a second.
800-941-Sean, our number, if you want to be a part of the program.
Hey, Mike Lindell, his employees, they want to thank you, their loyal customers, for your continued support.
And to do so, they're having a massive sale, not only on overstock and clearance products, but new products as well.
Just go to mypillow.com, click on the Sean Hannity Square.
Right now, 50% off.
The all-new MyPillow 2.0, their new flannel sheets, they're 50% off.
They're not going to last long.
The new towel sets, 50% off, $29.98.
Also, right now, you get free shipping, which means you save a lot of money if you buy their larger items like a mattress or mattress topper, all 100% made in the U.S., on sale now for as low as $99.99.
You also have all their other great products.
Check them out.
Go to mypillow.com, click on the Sean Hannity Square and check out everything.
And or just call 800-919-6090.
Mention my name.
It's that simple.
It's actually amazing.
It's taken a while for some in the media, and I'm not being critical.
I actually like Joe Rogan, but he's not as political, say, as this show is, which is great.
I think that's, you know, he's been successful on his own.
He doesn't need any, he doesn't need any help from anybody.
But he had Dr. Phil on, and we've had Dr. Phil on TV.
Dr. Phil did something that was actually amazing.
He actually spent time at the border with Brandon Judd, head of the Border Patrol Union, and told him that American taxpayer dollars are paying for human trafficking of children.
And this is all stuff we've been trying.
We've been like, you know, a voice in the wilderness here to get America to wake up to this fact.
Let's play that exchange.
These children that are coming in with someone that says I'm their mother, aunt, uncle, or whatever, we have no way of verifying that.
We do not.
We used to.
Under President Trump, we had rapid DNA testing.
That's been done away with.
Are they given money to these people that are released into the country?
So it's our taxpayers that ultimately facilitate the travel.
But yes, travel is facilitated and they are given all the necessities that they need.
But that could be a trafficker.
There's a very good possibility that they're being trafficked, that they're going into the sex industry or they're being forced into the sweatshops.
And we know that.
We knowingly are spending our tax dollars to sell children into sex trafficking.
How under any theory is that okay for us to be spending tax dollars to traffic children?
Holy now, this is the head guy on the border.
And I asked him when this went on a little more.
We went in more depth.
You know, you're on camera here, right?
You just said we're spending tax dollars to sell children into sex slavery.
And he said, yeah.
I said, why have you not talked about this?
He said, nobody's ever asked me these pointed questions, but I'm grateful that you're asking them now.
That's how out of control we are down there.
We are paying money to take these children and sell them into sex slavery.
They come in with these addresses written on their bodies, written on their arm, and we call up there and say, do you know so-and-so?
Yes, we're waiting for them.
Okay, they'll be on a plane or a bus, and you need to pick them up.
And I ask him, so some pimp or trafficker or whatever is picking them up up there.
And he said, we are knowingly sending them up there for that.
Now, by the way, all credit to Dr. Phil for taking the time to look at what is a real national security threat.
And Joe Rogan's looking at this saying, nobody can believe it.
And it's like all the networks have pretty much had a blackout on how bad the border has gotten.
Never mind the fentanyl and the opioids, as horrific as that is, and the deaths that result from open voters.
And the human trafficking, we've had all these people that work for Border Patrol and the years of human trafficking.
Now we have all these unvetted, illegal Joe Biden immigrants, and they're coming from countries that are a top geopolitical foes, even the number one state sponsor of Terror Iran and their satellite state, Syria.
And then, of course, the home of the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt, the home of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.
Then there's China and Russia.
Tens and tens of thousands, unvetted.
And it's getting worse.
Anyway, 800-941, Sean, if you want to be a part of the program as we continue, let's say hi to Chris in New York.
Chris, hi, how are you?
Glad you called, sir.
What's going on?
Yeah, hi, how are you doing?
Listen, my concern is people like you and Mark Simone and other people are saying that we have to embrace early voting and do the mail-in ballots.
But like, I live in Manhattan.
I don't trust anybody in Manhattan to count a paper ballot.
You know, it's not who you vote for.
It's who counts the votes.
And I have absolutely no trust or faith that if I mail something in, it's not going to get coffee spilled on it and tossed if they see it's a vote for Trump.
How do we deal with this?
Well, it's not the system we want.
I've explained in great specificity and detail what I think the system should be that would have the most integrity, that would result in the most confidence in the results.
And that is returning like Canada did and France did to paper ballots.
And it's simple.
You have voter ID, signature verification.
You allow the military, the sick, the infirm, the elderly, they can vote by mail, but it's got to be verified.
Chain of custody controls, updated voter rolls every election.
And then you need people that are partisan observers.
In other words, anybody that's on the ballot should have a representative that watches the voting all day and the vote counting all night.
You declare a winner.
Everybody goes home confident that the result was fair.
That's my system.
Here's our problem.
That's not the system we have.
And the system we have now is weeks and weeks and weeks of early voting, even though a lot can happen between early voting days and election day, i.e.
a laptop can be discovered and can be vetted.
And number one, and number two, I think there's less integrity.
Now, Florida does it perfectly, I can tell you.
So that's good news.
They have integrity in the system, and it's come off flawlessly.
By the way, they've had their own hiccups starting back in 2000.
But here's the problem.
That's not the system we have.
The system we have, you know, in many states, you don't even need voter ID.
New York, you don't need voter ID.
There's no signature verification anymore.
And, you know, partisan observers during COVID in 2020, 1,000 feet away, what good is that?
You need to be up close and watching it closely.
That's what partisan observers should do.
And anyway, so you have to deal until Republicans win elections and then can change voting to a better system with more integrity, resulting in more confidence.
You've got to deal with the hand you dealt.
Now, if Republicans and conservatives like you continue to reject and early voting, voting by mail, and then decide to show up on Election Day, that's all fine and dandy.
But we saw the exact exact consequence of that in New York's congressional district number three.
And that was with Mase Pillop versus Tom Swazi.
And in that case, what do we see?
Okay, Democrats, they won the early voting by a long shot.
And guess what?
They had a snowstorm on Election Day, a pretty bad storm where older people certainly are not going to go out and vote.
And they tend to vote in the morning.
Didn't clean up till later in the afternoon.
And I think the race, I don't believe that Pillop would have been able to make up the difference, but it would have been a lot closer.
And so you have to, you can't start out on Election Day down hundreds and hundreds of thousands of votes.
Great.
It looks great on election night.
Returns coming in.
Your candidates up by a lot.
And then as the days go by and the counting continues and the mail imbalance get counted, and I think they should be counted right away as they come in, by the way, not day of.
You know, then all of a sudden that lead diminishes.
And then all of a sudden you find yourself 12,000 votes behind and they're saying the Democrat won.
So that's the danger.
You've got to play with the system.
You've got to deal with the hand you dealt.
If you're sitting at a blackjack table, you've got a hand.
It is what it is.
You can't change that.
And then hopefully change it down the road.
Does that help you?
I would vote.
I'm highly recommending get over your reluctance and resistance to voting early.
So hopefully, you know, better systems will be in check, and hopefully state legislatures where Republicans are in charge, they can put more integrity into the system.
I told you the system I'd like.
Anyway, I hope that it's an important question you're asking.
And I just, I've been saying this now for a couple of years.
I feel like a broken record, but I know that people don't hear every second of every show, so I'm saying it again.
Anyway, back to our phones.
Good call.
Herb is in Georgia.
Herb, how are you?
Glad you called, sir.
I am doing well.
It's a pleasure to speak with you.
Great to speak with you.
I just had a comment question regarding President Trump and this New York ruling that came down against him and him having to pay back hundreds of millions of dollars.
And basically that was he had my understanding was that it was the ruling was over valuations over what somebody said a piece of property or something was worth.
So he had a, and I'm just throwing numbers out there, $10 million building.
And he got a loan for that $10 million building and he paid back his loan and all that.
Everybody was happy.
But no victims.
Yep.
They're saying that $10 million building was only worth $1 million.
So they want him to pay back money on that $9 million or whatever it was.
However, he paid insurance on the $10 million building and the premium's higher than it is on a $1 million building.
He paid taxes on the $10 million building.
So the state, the counties, the cities, the municipalities, all of them benefited from his valuations, but yet they're charging him and penalizing him for what he said it was worth or what the bank said it was worth.
They're going to penalize him for that, but they're not giving him refunds on what he paid in taxes and properties and interest and insurance premiums and all of that.
What's the deal with all of that?
Look, I can only tell you, if you can't look at this case and objectively discern that one man, one family, one organization was singled out, if you can't see the politics behind this, if you can't see the danger in this for the country, then I got to tell you something, that we have a problem because it is extraordinarily dangerous.
And, you know, then you've got all these, is everybody being treated equally?
If there's no victim and there's a disclaimer, don't use our valuations.
And you have nobody complaining.
As a matter of fact, Deutsche Bank representatives, they still do business with Donald Trump and they want his business.
And they say, no, valuations are subjective to, I guess, the eye of the beholder.
I mean, somebody might come to your house and offer you more than you're asking for.
That's happened to many people because they think it's worth it to them for whatever reason.
But that's why there's a fiduciary responsibility for lenders and insurance companies.
And there's no lender and there's no insurance company that is going to take the word of a borrower or an insuree in terms of what they value their collateral at.
That is not.
If they did, they'd be out of business.
So again, no victims here, but it's scary, actually.
This is really scary because we're now using the law to punish people we dislike politically.
And they're trying to create an avalanche of legal troubles for President Trump so he doesn't have the ability to run a regular campaign.
And at the end of the process, maybe have the word convict next to his name in every article, every report, convict on, I can hear it now.
And then the American people are going to have to decipher whether or not he's been unfairly targeted.
But I think that narrative, I think the people in this country get it.
Fair-minded people at least get it.
And they've so overreached in their desire to destroy this man that I think it's going to boomerang back on them, and they're going to probably realize that it was a big mistake.
American people are good people.
They also have a sense of fundamental fairness.
And I'm confident in that.
Anyway, Herb, thank you.
Love our friends in Georgia.
God bless you, my friend.
Quick break.
We'll come right back.
More of your calls coming up straight ahead.
It's 800-941 Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
I pack your busy phones.
Let us say hi to Cassandra.
She's out in Colorado, Rocky Mountain High.
What's up, Cassandra?
How are you?
Hi, Sean.
I'm calling to, well, ask your opinion about something regarding the sentence that he received from that judge in the Letitia James case.
And I might not know all the facts, but you can correct me.
Anyway, it's my understanding that that sentence plus the pretrial and post-trial interest on that sentence is going to cost him or he has to pay in order to appeal it.
He has to pay something close to half a billion dollars.
Yeah, that's a fair estimate.
And no matter how rich you are, I mean, he's got buildings he could sell, but how fast can you sell a building?
And I don't know when he has to make that payment.
But here's what I've been thinking.
He cannot pay.
I don't care how rich you are, half a billion dollars and all the other legal fees and all the other attorneys.
I can only imagine.
I mean, nobody could afford all this in the end.
I don't care how wealthy you are.
I mean, does Donald Trump now have to sell off some of his prized properties?
I don't know.
It was even a GoFundMe page.
Somebody pointed out to me.
I'm like, well, I mean, even, you know, a half a billion dollars to a billionaire, I bet you is a lot of money.
I don't know how much Donald Trump is worth.
I don't.
But that's a lot of money, and that is a lot of harassment.
And this is why we are investigating the weaponization of our entire legal system.
These are scary times, but I have to let you go only because I'm running out of time.
▲
Export Selection